research paper on rhetorical device

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effects of rhetorical devices on audience responses with online videos: An augmented elaboration likelihood model

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Interactive Media, School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China

Roles Data curation, Resources

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation College of Communication, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Roles Data curation

Affiliation College of Liberal Arts, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang City, Jiangxi, 330022, China

• Guangchao Charles Feng, 
• Yiwen Luo, 
• Zhenwei Yu, 
• Jinlang Wen

• Published: March 16, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282663
• Reader Comments

The way in which information is linguistically presented can impact audience attention, emotion, and cognitive responses, even if the content remains unchanged. The present study aims to examine the effects of rhetorical devices on audience responses by introducing a new theoretical framework, the augmented elaboration likelihood model (A-ELM), which integrates elements of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and narrative theory. The results show that the mediation effects of attention on the relationships between rhetorical devices and affective and cognitive elaborations are moderated by involvement. Nonnarrative evidence, combined narrative and numerical evidence, source credibility, and tropes versus the lack of figures of speech, elicit better audience responses in low-involvement situations, whereas numerical evidence outperforms narratives in high-involvement situations. This study not only offers a novel theoretical framework in the form of A-ELM, but also has important implications for advancing methodologies and practical applications.

Citation: Feng GC, Luo Y, Yu Z, Wen J (2023) Effects of rhetorical devices on audience responses with online videos: An augmented elaboration likelihood model. PLoS ONE 18(3): e0282663. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282663

Editor: Krzysztof Stepaniuk, Bialystok University of Technology: Politechnika Bialostocka, POLAND

Received: December 12, 2022; Accepted: February 20, 2023; Published: March 16, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Feng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Figshare ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19498751.v1 ).

Funding: Specific grant numbers (grant no.: 18BXW082) Initials of authors who received each award (GF) Full names of commercial companies that funded the study or authors (no commercial companies are involved) Initials of authors who received salary or other funding from commercial companies (na) URLs to sponsors’ websites ( http://www.nopss.gov.cn/ ) The funder (National Social Science Fund of China) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The manner in which information is linguistically presented has a profound impact on how audiences attend to, process, and respond to it emotionally, even when the content remains the same [ 1 ]. This is particularly relevant in today’s digital world, where online videos have become a prevalent form of media consumption. These videos are not only used for entertainment purposes, but they also serve as sources of information dissemination, product advertising, and political campaigning [ 2 ]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the role of narratives and rhetorical strategies in shaping audience responses to online videos, particularly given the widespread influence of these videos on society.

Despite numerous studies exploring the persuasive effects of linguistic styles, there is still a gap in our understanding of how rhetorical strategies interact to influence audience responses in real-world settings. Most prior studies have relied on small-scale empirical studies to examine the effects of rhetorical figures on various outcomes, such as attention, ad attitudes, brand attitudes, purchase intention, preference, and memorability [ 3 – 7 ]. These studies have often ignored the potential interaction between rhetorical figures and other message features, such as narratives.

To fill this gap, the present study aims to investigate the effects of rhetorical devices and the possible interactions among them on audience responses to online videos. By combining big data mining and content analysis methods, this study seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between narratives and rhetorical devices and audience responses. The study also proposes an integrated framework that incorporates theories from information processing and narratives, which has the potential to address the inconsistent and mixed findings of prior studies.

This new study is necessary as it has the potential to inform the development of more effective communication strategies and deepen our understanding of how language shapes the way in which we attend to, process, and respond to information, particularly in the context of online videos. With the growing influence of online videos, a better understanding of the interplay between message strategies and audience responses has the potential to lead to more impactful and effective communication.

Audience responses

Prior research has demonstrated that the use of rhetorical figures in messages can enhance audience engagement by eliciting responses in attention, cognitive (i.e., thoughts), and affective (i.e., feelings) elaborations [ 8 , 9 ]. These responses are susceptible to different message features and heuristic cues, and rhetorical devices serve as relevant influencers. For instance, Weber [ 10 ] discovered that less factual news is conducive to audiences’ perceived relevance and engagement among many news (message) factors. This finding alludes to the positive effect of narratives and other rhetorical devices on audience responses, each of which will be reviewed below.

Thoroughly examining the relationships among attentive (e.g., viewing or the first time clicking), cognitive (e.g., commenting), and affective (e.g., liking) responses is beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that attention acts as a gatekeeper for both cognitive and affective responses [ 11 – 14 ]. This is especially relevant in the context of online videos, where users must click on the video to view it before they can engage with it through likes, shares, and comments. The relationship between cognition and affect, however, remains a topic of intense debate [ 15 – 17 ]. Rather than delving into this debate, this study considers affective and cognitive elaborations as parallel response variables of attention.

Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Attention to the headline is positively associated with subsequent affective (e.g., liking) (H1a) and cognitive elaborations [i.e., nonverbal (e.g., sharing) and verbal (e.g., commenting) elaborations (H1b)].

In what follows, various rhetorical devices, particularly narratives and figures of speech, and their effects on audience responses are reviewed, and hypotheses and research questions are raised accordingly.

Definitions.

Scholars from different disciplines have provided varying definitions of the term “narrative”. It is considered a symbolic representation of events [ 18 , 19 ]. [ 20 ] expanded the definition of narratives to include stories with plots and chronological sequences of events [ 19 , 21 ]. Although “narrative” often appears as a generic term in the literature, it can encompass various forms, such as personal stories, anecdotes, eyewitness accounts, entertainment-education content, and testimonials [ 20 , 22 ].

Narrative effects.

Previous research has consistently demonstrated the persuasive effects of narratives. The underlying mechanism is that once individuals become immersed in the story, there is a transportation effect that causes people to perceive the story as realistic and identify with its characters [ 23 ]. According to [ 23 ], individuals who are transported into a narrative world are likely to change their real-world beliefs through reduced negative cognitive responses and counterarguments, the realism of the experience, and strong affective responses [also see 24 ]. These findings are echoed by the extended elaboration likelihood model [ 24 ], the entertainment overcoming resistance model (EORM) [ 25 ], and exemplification theory [ 26 ].

While many studies have confirmed the persuasive effect of narrative content, some scholars have challenged these findings. Some have found a nonsignificant [ 27 ] or even reversed [ 28 ] effect of narratives versus nonnarratives on attitude changes or knowledge and perception. In addition [ 29 – 32 ], have found that a particular form of nonnarrative, i.e., numerical evidence, is more persuasive than narrative evidence. [ 33 ] contended that numerical evidence has a stronger effect than narrative evidence on beliefs and attitudes, whereas narrative evidence has a stronger influence on intentions. Follow-up studies by [ 29 , 34 ] found that a message combining narrative and numerical evidence is more persuasive than using either form of evidence alone. This finding was also replicated by [ 35 ].

Moderation effect of involvement on the relationship between narratives and responses.

[ 36 ] attributed mixed findings regarding the persuasive effects of narratives and numerical evidence to the influence of involvement. [ 36 ] also found that narrative testimonials are more compelling than numerical evidence under low involvement conditions. indicating that the effect of narrative is a heuristic process [ 36 ]. [ 37 ] suggested that individuals who are highly engaged in a narrative should have low levels of involvement and ability in scrutinizing a persuasive argument, while those highly involved in a compelling argument should concentrate on the quality of claims.

A series of related hypotheses are raised below:

H2: The effects of other forms of nonnarrative evidence, numerical evidence, and combined narrative and numerical evidence on attention are stronger than those of narrative evidence depending on the level of involvement. Specifically, narrative evidence receives greater attention than other forms of nonnarrative evidence (H2a), numerical evidence (H2b), and combined narrative and numerical evidence (H2c) under low involvement conditions.

H3: The indirect effects of other forms of nonnarrative evidence, numerical evidence, and combined narrative and numerical evidence on liking are stronger than those of narrative evidence depending on the level of involvement. Specifically, narrative evidence receives higher levels of liking than other forms of nonnarrative evidence (H3a), numerical evidence (H3b), and combined narrative and numerical evidence (H3c) under low involvement conditions.

H4: Similar to H3, narrative evidence receives higher levels of cognitive elaboration than other forms of nonnarrative evidence (H4a), numerical evidence (H4b), and combined narrative and numerical evidence (H4c) under low involvement conditions.

Figures of speech

Conceptualization..

A figure of speech (FoS), defined as “a form of speech artfully varied from common usage” [ 38 ], is a vital message style that affects persuasive effects [ 39 ]. Although over two hundred different figures have been cataloged, many are variants of approximately forty general types of figures of speech [ 40 ] [also cf. [ 41 ]]. These figures of speech can be divided into two major groups, i.e., tropes and schemes [ 38 ]. Tropes, including specific figures such as metaphors, puns, and associations, involve the substitution or destabilization of the meaning of a word that is a deviation from what it usually signifies. Schemes, which are characterized by the reversal of word order, omissions, insertions, repetitions, and rhyme, deviate from customary grammatical structure [ 5 , 38 , 40 ]. In the same vein, [ 42 ] classified rhetorical figures into two types, namely, metabolas and parataxis, which correspond to tropes and schemes, respectively.

The persuasive effects of rhetorical figures have been examined in various contexts and found to be effective, for example, advertisements that use rhetorical figures are more likely to garner greater attention [ 3 ], ad attitudes, brand attitudes, purchase intention [ 4 ], preference, and memorability [ 5 – 7 ].

Moderation effect of involvement on the relationship between FoS and responses.

The persuasive effects of a figure of speech (FoS) have also been found to be moderated by involvement. In studying a specific type of FoS, i.e., rhetorical questions, [ 43 ] found that the effect of rhetorical questions on message attention and elaboration is stronger at levels of low involvement. The reason for this is that rhetorical questions can distract message recipients from processing arguments and can also make recipients perceive pressure from the source [ 44 ]. A similar finding has been observed in a few ad copy studies [ 7 , 45 , 46 ]. Consequently, a series of related hypotheses are proposed below:

H5: Tropes (H5a) and schemes (H5b) receive greater attention than literal texts that do not use any figures of speech under low involvement conditions.

H6: The mediation effects of attention on the relationships between figures of speech and affective elaboration (liking) are moderated by involvement such that tropes (H6a) and schemes (H6b) receive higher levels of liking than literal texts that do not use figures of speech under low involvement conditions.

H7: The mediation effects of attention on the relationships between figures of speech and cognitive elaboration are moderated by involvement such that tropes (H7a) and schemes (H7b) receive higher elaboration than literal texts that do not use any figures of speech under low involvement conditions.

Source credibility

As reviewed above, the credibility of information sources [for a review of the conceptualization and operationalization, see 47 ] affects the effect of persuasion [ 48 ]. Previous studies have found that highly credible (trustworthy and competent) sources produce a more positive attitude toward advocacy than do sources that are perceived to be less credible [for a review, see [ 49 ]].

Moderation effect of involvement on the relationship between source credibility and responses.

The persuasive effect of source credibility is moderated by involvement [also cf. [ 50 , 51 ]]. When people have little involvement in an issue, a source with low credibility will induce a more positive attitude than will a more credible communicator [ 52 ]. According to the dual-process theories reviewed above, source credibility belongs to one of the peripheral cues that people rely on mainly under low involvement conditions in information processing [ 53 , 54 ] [for a review, see [ 55 ]]. That is, a highly credible source has a positive persuasive effect only when the level of involvement is low.

The following series of related hypotheses are raised accordingly:

H8: The effect of source credibility on attention is higher under low involvement conditions.

H9: The mediation effect of attention on the relationships between source credibility and liking is moderated by involvement such that higher levels of source credibility receives a higher level of liking under low involvement conditions.

H10: The mediation effect of attention on the relationships between source credibility and cognitive elaboration is moderated by involvement such that the higher level of source credibility receives higher levels of cognitive elaboration under low involvement conditions.

Augmented ELM (A-ELM)

The kind of processing strategy that a message recipient employs depends on the number of mental resources the recipient is motivated to allocate to such information processing [ 56 ]. Moreover, due to the varied mental resources (involvement, ability, and opportunity), the recipient will follow two relatively distinct routes in persuasion [ 57 ]. This theorizing is well documented in dual-process models, including the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) [ 57 , 58 ], the heuristics-systematic model (HSM) [ 59 ], the motivation, opportunity, and ability model (MOA) [ 60 ], and others.

The extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM) [ 24 , 61 ] hypothesizes that the processing process and outcome of entertainment content are determined by one’s engagement with the story plot and characters. Authors have argued that only involvement with the characters rather than issue involvement is relevant in such a context [ 24 ]. Nevertheless, such theorizing assumes that all entertainment content is homogeneous in substance, forms, and styles. [ 62 ] proposed the language complexity (simple vs. complex) × processing mode (automatic vs. controlled) framework (LCPMF), which considers the abovementioned variations of content. However, the relationship between language complexity and processing mode is entangled, and the LCPMF has never been empirically applied. In addition, language complexity may not fully account for the variation in processing strategies. For instance, a message recipient who is emotionally engaged with the story plot and characters or finds the message entertaining may maintain a constant processing mode, regardless of its level of complexity.

Moreover, the LCPMF fails to consider any cues other than language complexity, such as language intensity [ 63 ], narrative or numerical evidence, or the credibility of content creators, which might affect the processing strategies adopted. The present study proposes a new integrated theoretical framework called the augmented ELM (A-ELM) by incorporating narrative theory and the ELM. The A-ELM, as shown in Fig 1 , comprises all the hypotheses and research questions raised above. In summary, it maintains that the mediation effects of attention (click to view) on the relationships between rhetorical devices and elaborations are moderated by issue involvement.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282663.g001

Data mining.

Most data were collected from two major video-sharing websites in China, namely, Xigua Video (2,648,807 items or 35% of the total) and Bilibili (4,919,998 items or 65% of the total), through data scraping using a crawler programmed with Python. The elements of data to be scraped include the title of the video and the audience responses received for the content, which include the number of views, the number of likes, the number of saves, the number of shares, the number of danmaku (Danmu or bullet chats), and the number of comments, among others. In addition, the attribute information, including the visibility of the issue covered in the text and the author’s impact, e.g., the number of followers, was collected.

Content analysis and codebook.

After the data had been collected from the websites, ten thousand randomly sampled items were subjected to further content analysis (9,244 were left after removing those titles with fewer than five characters). The tests addressing the hypotheses and research questions were based on the coding results of the content analysis. Five senior-year undergraduate and four postgraduate students majoring in the Chinese language were recruited to code the sampled data according to the codebook.

The codebook describes and explains the categories of each variable, which will work as the independent variables used in later hypothesis testing. The coded independent variables included figures of speech [three categories including 1) tropes, 2) schemes, and 3) none] and types of evidence [four categories including 1) narrative, 2) numerical, 3) the combination of the two, and 4) other Nonnarrative evidence].

Each of the coders was trained by one of the three research assistants (RAs) and allowed to start formal coding only after their coding results had satisfactory intercoder reliability with those of a corresponding RA. The RAs also randomly chose samples of coding results from each coder to check their coding quality every day. If intercoder reliability was a problem, the coder of concern was asked to recode certain content.

The intercoder reliability test using the frequently used indices showed that all the categories’ intercoder reliability was satisfactory [ 64 – 67 ]. In addition to the results of the intercoder reliability test, the tables are also presented in the online appendix ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19498751.v1 ) due to the space limit.

Audience responses to headlines.

As discussed above [ 8 , 9 ], audience responses to headlines include paying attention to the headline (viewing) and subsequent affective (e.g., liking the story) and cognitive (e.g., commenting) elaborations after watching the video. These metrics were collected by scraping the relevant websites.

Viewing was measured by the number of viewers ( M = 547,654, SD = 1,056,431, N = 9,244).

Affective Elaboration.

Affective elaboration, or liking, was measured by the number of likes ( M = 26,521, SD = 65,718, N = 8,182).

Cognitive Elaboration.

Cognitive elaboration was measured by the number of shares ( M = 2155, SD = 8,308, N = 8,168), the number of saves ( M = 6,311, SD = 24,119, N = 8,168), the number of comments ( M = 692, SD = 1,825, N = 9,242), and the number of Danmaku (overlaying comments on video displays) ( M = 3,398, SD = 8,747, N = 5,022).

Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed to examine the scale’s dimensionality based on the big data ( N = 7,568,805). The number of extracted factors in the PCA was determined based on the eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule [ 68 ]. The PCA yielded two factors (verbal and nonverbal cognitive elaborations) that explained 85% of the variance in the items. The factor loadings of verbal elaboration were .86 (comments) and .90 (Danmaku), and the Cronbach’s α was .72. The factor loadings of nonverbal elaboration were .94 (shares) and .95 (saves), and the Cronbach’s α was .87. Given the acceptable performance on validity and reliability, the dimensionality results derived from PCA were used in the following structural equation modeling (SEM).

Independent variables

Types of evidence..

The four categories of evidence were coded as narrative (70.857%), numerical (.876%), the combination of the two (1.309%), and other nonnarrative evidence (26.958%).

Figures of Speech.

There were three included categories of figures of speech, i.e., tropes (18.714%), schemes (12.166%), and none (69.120%).

Source Credibility.

Source credibility was measured by the number of followers of content creators ( M = 1,025,659, SD = 3,386,276, N = 9,244) and the fame of content creators.

The Number of Followers.

The number of followers a content creator has is often used as a peripheral cue by consumers to gauge the creator’s trustworthiness and credibility [ 69 , 70 ]. Moreover, [ 69 ] discovered a positive effect of the number of followers a celebrity has on the subject’s perception of the celebrity’s attractiveness, trustworthiness, and competence [cf. 71 ]. This information was collected by scraping the existing data of the websites.

The Fame of Content Creators.

The authors of videos come from a variety of sources, including 1) traditional media, 2) new media platforms, 3) official organizations, 4) nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 5) celebrities, 6) ordinary anchors (equivalent to YouTubers), and 7) famous anchors. A cluster analysis was performed to rank the content creators by the degree of fame. The result showed three ordered categories of fame, i.e., 6, 2 and 7 combined, and the rest combined.

The same PCA procedures as those discussed above were performed on the two items based on the big data ( N = 7,568,805). The PCA yielded one factor that explained 79% of the variance in the items. The factor loadings were .8 and .88, and the Cronbach’s α was .865.

Issue Involvement.

Involvement can indicate the importance of an issue and the amount of needed effort to process information [ 72 ] [for a taxonomy of involvement, see [ 73 ]]. The study’s data sources could be a natural proxy measure of involvement due to the difference in the needed effort of browsing. The two video platforms have very diverse user bases. The users of Bilibili are mostly generation Z and fans of ACGN (animations, comics, games, and novels) [ 74 , 75 ], while the users of Xigua are, in general, generally older people who care about serious topics [ 76 , 77 ]. Therefore, the users of Bilibili who aim to seek stimulation have a shorter attention span and are less likely to pay attention to the details in the text of titles [cf. 78 ] than those of Xigua. In light of the fundamental difference in the user characteristics of the two platforms, the level of involvement was measured by the sources of the videos. Bilibili (Bilibili = 2, 31.556%) and Xigua (Xigua = 1, 68.444%) indicate conditions of high and low involvement, respectively.

Control Variables.

There were two control variables that served as control variables, i.e., topic visibility and the date difference between publishing and crawling times.

Topic Visibility.

Topic visibility or familiarity, which might affect attention, worked as a control variable [cf. 79 ]. The visibility of the concerning event or people, as often displayed in social media metrics, indicates the object’s popularity [ 80 ]. This visibility also serves as a heuristic cue for the algorithms and the users of video websites alike to perceive that object as valuable and noteworthy [ 81 ]. This variable must be controlled because the trending topic easily dominates the attention of users, and people are hence less likely to be affected by the rhetorical strategies contained in the title that has recently been widely discussed on social media.

The visibility of the concerned topic was measured by the number of search times obtained by scraping the “hot searches” provided by Weibo, which is a Twitter-like website in China. The video titles are matched with the “hot searches” database during the same period. Those that were successfully matched received a rating score of visibility, whereas those that failed to match were left blank (NA) ( M = 812,146, SD = 1,062,156, N = 8,499).

Date Differences.

Videos published in earlier days will have more extended viewing periods and, hence, a better chance to be viewed ( M = 171, SD = 294, N = 8,473). Controlling for the effect of this date difference aimed to rule out the influence resulting from the artifact.

Model specification.

As stated in the hypotheses and RQs above, attention mediates the effects of rhetorical devices on affective and cognitive elaborations. Moreover, such a mediation process is moderated by the level of involvement, which forms the moderated mediation model [for a review of this method, see [ 82 ]]. In light of [ 82 ], the significant prediction of either a j (the prediction from predictor X to mediator M ) or b j (the prediction from M to dependent variable Y ) depending on moderator W indicates the presence of moderated mediation. The predictions of a j depending on W (involvement) have been included in H5 and H6, while the predictions of b j are not dependent on involvement due to a lack of theoretical support.

Dataset and analysis

The data were scraped, cleaned, and manipulated using Python 3.7. The dataset is stored on the online repository ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19498751.v1 ). Some analyses (e.g., PCA and reliability test) and data manipulation also employed R 3.6, and hypothesis testing using structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed with M plus 8.6 [ 83 ]. The collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data.

Results and discussions

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) derived from the mixed-effects null model was .295, indicating that 29.5% of the variance was accounted for by clustering. As a result, multilevel modeling was necessary. The hypotheses and research questions were addressed using multilevel moderated mediation modeling with SEM and the Monte Carlo and numerical integration method, which. However, this method made χ 2 and related fit statistics unavailable.

All the measurement models were significant. The number of shares and saves were significantly loaded on the factor of nonverbal cognitive elaboration, whereas the number of comments and danmaku were significantly loaded on the factor of verbal cognitive elaboration. Moreover, the two factors were significantly loaded on a single factor, which is simplified as cognitive elaboration. In addition, the number of followers and the fame of content creators were significantly loaded on a single factor, i.e., source credibility.

Both affective elaboration (i.e., the number of likes) and cognitive elaboration were significantly predicted by attention (i.e., the number of viewers) ( β = .713, p <.001; β = .423, p <.001). That is, higher levels of attention translate into higher levels of affective and cognitive elaborations. Consequently, H1 was supported.

Depending on the level of involvement, the effects of other forms of nonnarratives (vs. narratives) and combined narrative and numerical evidence on attention were significant ( β = .043, p <.01; β = .176, p <.01. That is, nonnarrative evidence and combined narrative and numerical evidence attract more viewers than narrative evidence under low involvement conditions. Numerical evidence attracts more viewers under high involvement conditions, as expected, but this effect was insignificant ( β = −.111, p = .179). Consequently, H2a and H2c were supported, but H2b was rejected.

Regarding the effect of figures of speech (FoS) on attention, only the effect of tropes (vs. nonuse of FoS) was significant ( β = .061, p <.01). That is, tropes can attract more viewers than literal texts under low involvement conditions. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in attracting viewers between schemes and the nonuse of FoS. Consequently, H5a was supported, but H5b was rejected.

The effect of source credibility on attention was significant ( β = 32.211, p <.001). That is, the higher the source credibility is, the more viewers there are when the involvement level is low. Therefore, H8 was supported.

The effect of the control variables (i.e., visibility of the issue and date difference) on attention was also significant ( β = −.062, p <.001; β = .116, p <.001). Higher levels of visibility attract fewer viewers under low involvement conditions. The longer that videos are published, the more viewers they have. In summary, controlling for the effects of visibility and date difference, the effects of numerical and other forms of nonnarrative evidence, tropes, and source credibility on attention were significant depending on the varying level of involvement.

The moderated mediation effects of attention on the relationships between rhetorical devices (and source credibility) and affective elaboration (e.g., liking), and cognitive elaboration had mixed results. The effects of the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, other forms of nonnarrative (vs. narrative) evidence, tropes (vs. nonuse of figure of speech), and source credibility on both affective and cognitive elaborations were significantly mediated by attention depending on the level of involvement. There were significant moderated mediation effects of the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, other forms of nonnarrative evidence, tropes and source credibility on liking, i.e., affective elaboration( β = .251, p <.01; β = .061, p <.01; β = .087, p <.001; β = 45.957, p <.001) and cognitive elaboration ( β = .149, p <.01; β = .036, p <.01; β = .051, p <.05; β = 27.258, p <.001). Consequently, H3a, H3c, H4a, H4c, H6a, H7a, H9, and H10 were supported, but H3b, H4b, H6b, and H7b were rejected.

The relationships between the mediator (i.e., attention) and affective and cognitive elaborations were significant. Attention clearly plays the role of a gatekeeper for subsequent responses. Nevertheless, the effects of linguistic devices and source credibility on responses were not consistent.

There are significant and moderated (by involvement) mediation effects of attention on the relationships between the predictors [other forms of nonnarrative (vs. narrative) evidence, the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, tropes (vs. nonuse of figure of speech), and source credibility] and both affective and cognitive elaborations. When the level of involvement was low, the combination of narrative and numerical evidence, other forms of nonnarrative evidence, tropes, and source credibility had positive effects on audience responses. In contrast, visibility had positive effects on responses under high involvement conditions. The positive effects of other forms of nonnarrative evidence and the combination of narrative and numerical evidence under low involvement conditions could be attributed to two factors.

First, in the context of video viewing, the titles using narratives have already included a synopsis of their stories. If users have low issue involvement, then they lack the motivation to click to watch the video. Second, an untested three-way interaction may exist on top of the moderation of involvement. For instance, the genre of videos, which is an attribute not reported by Xigua Video, may moderate the interaction effect of involvement and evidence types. In addition, older age groups are more easily attracted by narratives, while members of generation Z [ 75 ], who comprise the staple user base of Bilibili, prefer nonnarratives with or without numbers over narratives in their browsing [cf. 84 ].

Research implications

This study has made substantial theoretical contributions by proposing an augmented ELM (A-ELM) that combines narrative theory and dual-process theories into a unified theoretical framework. The A-ELM represents an improvement over previous ELM(s) in multiple ways.

The A-ELM is different from the E-ELM [ 24 , 61 ], which holds that the audience’s emotional engagement (transportation) is only relevant to high levels of involvement with the plots and characters. Involvement with the plots and characters is different from issue involvement. The former, which is a core concept in the E-ELM, should be better conceptualized as narrative engagement, while the latter is simply involvement that the ELM refers to. Moreover, the E-ELM contends that communication outcomes are determined by involvement with the story plot and characters, while the A-ELM maintains that mere narrative evidence is detrimental to communication outcomes when issue involvement is low. The underlying reason is that users lack the motivation to process the information further when they are not interested in the issue per se.

The A-ELM provides a fresh perspective on the debate over the persuasive impact of narratives versus numerical evidence. Nonnarratives should be differentiated between numerical and nonnumerical ones. Numerical evidence indicating a higher argument quality works better under high involvement conditions. In contrast, other nonnarrative evidence is believed to have better audience responses under low involvement conditions.

In addition, tropes and source credibility have better effects on audience responses under the low involvement condition, while video titles that address social issues tend to attract users with high levels of involvement.

The present study employed two methods, i.e., big data mining and content analysis. The validity and reliability of the measurement scales were first confirmed based on big data collected from the natural setting, and then the hypotheses and research questions were examined based on randomly selected data subjected to content analysis. In addition, the study adopted innovative multilevel moderated mediation modeling based on Monte Carlo integration. Therefore, this study has made several methodological contributions to the field.

This study not only has theoretical and methodological implications, but also practical implications for video creators. Depending on the users that a video targets, video creators can choose specific rhetorical devices to grab attention. Specifically, creators should use nonnarrative evidence and figures such as metaphors, puns, and other similar tropes in video titles to engage young users who lack persistent levels of involvement. Nevertheless, video titles with numerical evidence and public issues work best to engage older users who are interested in serious topics.

Conclusions

This study found that attention (number of viewers) is a significant predictor of affective (number of likes) and cognitive (e.g., number of comments) elaborations. Higher levels of attention result in higher levels of affective and cognitive elaborations. This study also found that nonnarrative evidence and combined narrative and numerical evidence attract more viewers than narrative evidence under low involvement. The use of tropes in figures of speech was found to attract more viewers than literal texts under low involvement. It implies that when reading texts with tropes and non-narratives, users apparently process those messages effortlessly as peripheral cues. Users, however, process numerical information, particularly concerning trending social issues, in an effortful and systematic way.

Source credibility was found to have a significant effect on attention, with higher credibility leading to more viewers under low involvement. The control variables, i.e., visibility of the issue and date difference, were also found to have a significant effect on attention.

Limitations

The mixed results of the study could be attributed to several limitations. Firstly, the study only utilized data from two major video-sharing websites in China, which may have resulted in the exclusion of other important sources and websites. Secondly, the impact of narratives on communication could be influenced by transportation and narrative involvement, but the extent of narrative involvement was not accessible to the study. Finally, due to the use of secondary data, many constructs were measured using a limited number of items, leading to concerns about reliability.

Future research directions

Based on the limitations mentioned above, future research directions in this area could include:

• To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the communication effects of rhetorical devices and narratives, the scope of data sources could be expanded to include additional video-sharing websites, such as those in China and beyond, including YouTube [cf. 2].
• Enhancing Measurement Reliability. To address the reliability concerns in the measurement of constructs, future research could utilize multiple items or more robust measures. Furthermore, while the primary users of the two video-sharing platforms were originally comprised of Generation Z and older adults, these platforms are now evolving to attract a more diverse range of age groups. Therefore, the measurement of involvement could be improved by using additional variables such as content focus (e.g. political vs entertainment).
• Investigating the effects of rhetorical devices and narratives in different contexts. The effects of rhetorical devices and narratives may vary across different communication contexts, such as in politics, entertainment, advertising, or health. Future research could examine the effects in these different contexts and compare the results to the findings of this study.
• Conducting qualitative studies to complement the quantitative findings, and explore the underlying mechanisms and processes that explain the communication effects of rhetorical devices and narratives.

These future research directions could help to further our understanding of the effects of rhetorical devices and narratives on communication outcomes and inform the development of more effective communication strategies that use rhetorical devices and narratives.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. Berlyne DE. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1971.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 12. Lazarus RS. The cognition–emotion debate: A bit of history. In: Dalgleish T, Power M, editors. Handbook of cognition and emotion. New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1999. p. 3–19.
• 14. Wilson BJ, Gottman JM. Attention—The Shuttle Between Emotion and Cognition: Risk, Resiliency, and Physiological Bases. Stress, Coping, and Resiliency in Children and Families: Psychology Press; 1996.
• 18. Abbott HP. Defining narrative. 2 ed. Abbott HP, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. 13–27 p.
• 19. Gabriel Y. Stories and Narratives. 2018 2021/07/28. In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: Methods and Challenges [Internet]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-business-and-management-research-methods-v2 .
• 38. Corbett EP. Classical rhetoric. NEW YORK: Oxford University Press; 1965.
• 39. Shen L, Bigsby E. The effects of message features: Content, structure, and style. The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 2013. p. 20–35.
• 42. Barthes R. Rhetoric of the Image. Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill and Wang; 1977. p. 32–51.
• 58. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer New York; 1986. p. 1–24.
• 59. Chaiken S. The heuristic model of persuasion. Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Vol 5. Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1987. p. 3–39.
• 61. Slater MD. Involvement as Goal-Directed Strategic Processing: Extending the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M, editors. The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2002.
• 77. Fang W. Zhongshipin Sanwanjia Luxian Zhizheng: Xigua de Suanfa, B zhan de Quanzi, Zhihu de Da V China: Jiemian Xinwen; 2021. Available from: https://www.jiemian.com/article/5634681.html .
• 80. Marwick AE. Status update—celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2013.
• 83. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus: the comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: user’s guide. 8.3 ed. Los Angeles, CA: MuthÈn & MuthÈn; 2019.

Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness

• The Writer’s Craft
• Open access
• Published: 07 May 2018
• Volume 7 , pages 207–210, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lara Varpio 1  

63k Accesses

12 Citations

68 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Wherever there is meaning there is persuasion. —Kenneth Burke [ 1 ]

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

Scientific research is, for many, the epitome of objectivity and rationality. But, as Burke reminds us, conveying the meaning of our research to others involves persuasion. In other words, when I write a research manuscript, I must construct an argument to persuade the reader to accept my rationality .

While asserting that scientific findings must be persuasively conveyed may seem contradictory, it is simply a consequence of how we conduct research. Scientific research is a social activity centred on answering challenging questions. When these questions are answered, the solutions we propose are just that—propositions. Our solutions are accepted by the community until another, better proposition offers a more compelling explanation. In other words, everything we know is accepted for now but not forever .

This means that when we write up our research findings, we need to be persuasive. We must convince readers to accept our findings and the conclusions we draw from them. That acceptance may require dethroning widely held perspectives. It may require having the reader adopt new ways of thinking about a phenomenon. It may require convincing the audience that other, highly respected researchers are wrong. Regardless of the argument I want the reader to accept, I have to persuade the reader to agree with me .

Therefore, being a successful researcher requires developing the skills of persuasion—the skills of a rhetorician. Fortunately for the readers of Perspectives on Medical Education, The Writer’s Craft series offers a treasure trove of rhetorical tools that health professions education researchers can mine.

A primary lesson of rhetoric was developed by Aristotle. He studied rhetoric analytically, investigating all the means of persuasion available in a given situation. He identified three appeals at play in all acts of persuasion: ethos, logos and pathos. The first is focused on the author, the second on the argument, the third on the reader. Together, they support effective persuasion, and so can be harnessed by researchers to powerfully convey the meaning of their research.

Ethos is the appeal focused on the writer. It refers to the character of the writer, including her credibility and trustworthiness. The reader must be convinced that the author is an authority and merits attention. In scientific research, the author must establish her credibility as a rigorous and expert researcher. Much of an author’s ethos, then, lies in using well-reasoned and justified research methodologies and methods. But, a writer’s credibility can be bolstered using a number of rhetorical techniques including similitude and deference .

Similitude appeals to similarities between the author and the reader to create a sense of mutual identification. Using pronouns like we and us, the writer reinforces commonality with the reader and so encourages a sense of cohesion and community. To illustrate, consider the following:

While burnout continues to plague our residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

While burnout continues to plague residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. Medical educators owe it to their residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

In the first sentence, the author aligns herself with the community of medical educators involved in residency education. The writer is part of the we who has to support residents. She makes the burnout problem something she and the reader are both called upon to address. In the second sentence, the author separates herself from this community of educators. She creates social distance between herself and the reader, and thus places the burden of resolving the problem more squarely on the shoulders of the reader than herself.

Both phrasings are equally correct, grammatically. One creates social connection, the other social distance.

Deference is a way for the author to signal respect for others, and personal humility. The writer can demonstrate deference by using phrases such as in my opinion , or through the use of adjectives (e.g., Smith rigorously studied) or adverbs (e.g., the important work by Jones). For example:

The thoughtful research conducted by Jane Doe et al. suggests that resident burnout is more prevalent among those learners who were shamed by attending physicians. Echoing the calls of others [ 1 ], we contend that this work should be extended to also consider the role of fellow learners as potential contributors to resident experiences of burnout.

In this sentence, the author does not present Jane Doe and colleagues as weak researchers, nor as developing findings that should be rejected. Instead, it shows deference to these researchers by acknowledging the quality of their research and a willingness to build on the foundation provided by their findings. (Note how the author also builds ethos via similitude with other scholars by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that other researchers have also called for more research on the author’s suggested extension of Doe’s work).

Readers pick up on the respect authors pay to other researchers. Being rude or unkind in our writing rarely achieves anything except reflecting poorly on the writer.

In sum, as my grandmother used to say: ‘You’ll slide farther on honey than gravel.’ Establishing similitude and showing deference helps to establish your ethos as an author. They help the writer make honey, not gravel.

Logos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the argument being presented by the author. It is an appeal to rationality, referring to the clarity and logical integrity of the argument. Logos is, therefore, primarily rooted in the reasoning that holds different elements of the manuscript’s argument together. Do the findings logically connect to support the conclusion being drawn? Are there errors in the author’s reasoning (i.e., logical fallacies) that undermine the logic presented in the manuscript? Logical fallacies will undercut the persuasive power of a manuscript. Authors are well advised to spend time mapping out the premises of their arguments and how they logically lead to the conclusions being drawn, avoiding common errors in reasoning (see Purdue’s on-line writing lab [ 2 ] for 12 of the most common logical fallacies that plague authors, complete with definitions and examples).

However, logos is not merely contained in the logic of the argument itself. Logos is only achieved if the reader is able to follow the author’s logic. To support the reader’s ability to process the logical argument presented in the manuscript, authors can use signposting. Signposting is often accomplished via words (e.g., first, next, specifically, alternatively, also, consequently, etc.) and phrases (e.g., as a result, and yet, for example, in conclusion, etc.) that help the reader to follow the line of reasoning as it moves through the manuscript. Signposts indicate to the reader the structure of the argument to come, where they are in the argument at the moment, and/or what they can expect to come next. Consider the following sentence from one of my own manuscripts. This is the last sentence in the Introduction [ 3 ]:

This study addresses these gaps by investigating the following questions: 1. How often are residents taught informally by physicians and nurses in clinical settings? 2. What competencies are informally taught to residents by physicians and nurses? 3. What teaching techniques are used by physicians and nurses to deliver informal education?

At the end of the Introduction, this sentence offers a map to the reader of how the paper’s argument will develop. The reader can now expect that the manuscript will address each of these questions, in this order. I could also use large-scale signposting, such as sub-headings in the Results, to organize the reading of data related to each of these questions. In the Discussion, I can use small-scale signpost terms and phrases (i.e., however, in contrast, in addition, finally, etc.) to help the reader follow the progression of the argument I am presenting .

I must offer one word of caution here: be sure to use your signposts precisely. If not, your writing will not be logically developed and you will weaken the logos at work in the manuscript. For instance, however signposts a contrasting or contradicting idea:

I enjoy working with residents; however , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

If the writer uses the wrong signpost, the meaning of the sentence falls apart, and so does the logos:

I enjoy working with residents; alternatively , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

Alternatively indicates a different option or possibility. This sentence does not present two different alternatives; it presents two contrasting ideas. Using alternatively confuses the meaning of the sentence, and thus impairs logos.

With clear and precise signposting, the reader will easily follow your argument across the manuscript. This supports the logos you develop as you guide the reader to your conclusions.

Pathos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the reader. Pathos refers to the emotions that are stirred in the reader while reading the manuscript. The author should seek to trigger specific emotional reactions in their writing. And, yes, there is room for emotions in scientific research articles. Some of my favourite manuscripts in The Writer’s Craft series are those that help authors elicit specific emotions from the reader.

For instance, in Joining the conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic Lingard highlights the importance of ‘hooking’ your audience. The hook ‘convinces readers that this gap [in the current literature] is of consequence’ [ 4 ]. The author must persuade the reader that the argument is important and worthy of the reader’s attention. This is an appeal to the readers’ emotions.

Another example is found in Bonfire red titles. As Lingard explains, the title of your manuscript is ‘advertising for what is inside your research paper’ [ 5 ]. The title must attract the readers’ attention and create a desire within them to read your manuscript. Here, again, is pathos in action in a scientific research paper: grab the reader’s attention from the very first word of the title.

Beyond those already addressed in The Writer’s Craft series, another rhetorical technique that appeals to the emotions of the reader is the strategic use of God-terms [ 1 ] . Burke defined God-terms as words or phrases that are ‘the ultimates of motivation,’ embodying characteristics that are fundamentally valued by humans. To use an analogy from card games (e.g., bridge or euchre), God-terms are like emotional trump cards. God-terms like freedom, justice, and duty call on shared human values, trumping contradictory feelings. By alluding to God-terms in our research, we increase the emotional appeal of our writing. Let us reconsider the example from above:

While burnout continues to plague our residents, medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service .

Here, the author reminds the reader that residents will be in service as physicians for their lifetime, and that we have a  duty (i.e., we owe it ) to support them in that calling to meet the public’s healthcare needs. Invoking the God-terms of service and duty, the writer taps into the reader’s sense of responsibility to support these learners.

It is important not to overplay pathos in a scientific research paper—i.e., readers are keenly intelligent scholars who will easily identify emotional exaggeration. Consider this variation on the previous example:

While burnout continues to ruin the lives of our residents, medical educators have neglected to identify the root causes of this problem. We have a moral obligation to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

This rephrasing is likely to create a sense of unease in the reader because of the emotional exaggerations it uses. By over-amplifying the appeals to emotion, this rephrasing elicits feelings of refusal and rejection in the reader. Instead of drawing the reader in, it pushes the reader away. When it comes to pathos, a light hand is best.

Peter Gould famously stated: ‘data can never speak for themselves’ [ 6 ]. Researchers must explain them. In that explaining, we endeavour to convince the audience that our propositions should be accepted. While the science in our research is at the core of that persuasion, there are techniques from rhetoric that can help us convince readers to accept our arguments. Ethos, logos and pathos are appeals that, when used intentionally and judiciously, can buoy the persuasive power of your manuscripts.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States of America’s Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Burke K. A rhetoric of motives. Berkley: University of California Press; 1969. p. 72.

Google Scholar  

Purdue Online Writing Lab. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. 1995. 2018. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/ . Accessed 3 Mar 2018.

Varpio L, Bidlake E, Casimiro L, et al. Resident experiences of informal education: how often, from whom, about what and how. Med Educ. 2014;48:1220–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lingard L. Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:252–3.

Lingard L. Bonfire red titles. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:179–81.

Gould P. Letting the data speak for themselves. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2005;71:166–76.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

Lara Varpio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lara Varpio .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Varpio, L. Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness. Perspect Med Educ 7 , 207–210 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0420-2

Download citation

Published : 07 May 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0420-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Reading Skills

Analyzing rhetorical devices.

• The Albert Team
• Last Updated On: December 22, 2023

What We Review

Introduction

Welcome to an exciting exploration of rhetoric and its powerful tools, known as rhetorical devices. Rhetoric is the art of using language effectively to persuade and communicate. Rhetorical devices are like special tricks that speakers and writers use to make their messages more convincing and impactful. These techniques are crucial because they shape the way we understand what people say or write, whether it’s in old speeches and books or in things we see and hear today.

Understanding rhetorical devices is crucial for anyone looking to enhance their analytical skills, as it allows for a deeper understanding of how arguments are constructed and what makes them effective. This knowledge is not just academic; it’s a practical tool that can improve your critical thinking, reading, and writing abilities.

In this guide, we will delve into the most common rhetorical devices, break down why they’re used, and show you how to spot them in different texts. We’ll also explore the principles of ethos, pathos, and logos, which are the foundation of persuasive communication. To make these ideas come to life, we’ll analyze Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” a text that’s filled with rhetorical strategies.

Get ready to embark on a journey that will deepen your understanding of language and its incredible power to persuade, inform, and move people. Let’s begin by unlocking the secrets of rhetorical devices and their role in shaping compelling communication.

Why Is Rhetoric Important?

Rhetoric is a very old skill that goes back to ancient Greece, where thinkers like Aristotle first talked about it. It’s all about using language in a smart way to achieve different goals, like convincing, informing, entertaining, or motivating people. What makes it important is that you can use it in many different situations, whether you want to shape what people think about something or just talk to someone.

In today’s world, where we have a lot of information, knowing about rhetoric is super useful. It helps us make messages that are interesting and strong, and it also helps us look carefully at what others are saying and decide if it makes sense. Understanding rhetoric isn’t just about talking well; it’s also about listening carefully and being part of good conversations. It’s a basic skill for talking effectively, thinking carefully, and being an active member of society.

When we study rhetoric, we learn not only how to say things in a way that convinces others but also how to figure out when others are trying to convince us. This double skill is really important in today’s world, where there’s a lot of talking and sharing ideas. It helps us understand and take part in important discussions.

What are Rhetorical Devices?

Rhetorical devices are tools and techniques that writers, speakers, and everyday people use to make their messages more effective. These tools are important because they help us build strong arguments, stir up emotions, and make complex ideas easier to understand. They’re not just fancy tricks; they’re essential for good communication.

Rhetorical Devices Examples

Rhetorical devices are the tools used to enhance persuasion and understanding in communication. They can add clarity, depth, and emotional impact to your message. Here’s a look at some widely recognized and powerful rhetorical devices, each with its unique influence on the audience.

Ethos is all about making the person who’s talking or writing seem believable and trustworthy. It’s like showing that they know what they’re talking about and that they’re honest. When people do this, it helps convince others that they can be trusted. For instance, when a doctor talks about health, they might mention their medical degree to show that they really know what they’re talking about, and that way, people will trust what they say.

Pathos is when you try to make the people you’re talking to feel something. It’s about making a connection by sharing emotions, wants, or fears. When you make people feel something, it can really change how they think and what they do. For instance, think about a commercial for a sports brand. It might tell a story about an athlete who faced tough challenges and came out on top. This story can make you feel inspired and determined. When you feel that way, you start to like the brand because it gave you those good feelings. That’s how pathos works.

Logos is all about using logic and good reasoning. It means showing information like data, facts, or numbers to make a strong and clear argument. For example, imagine a climate activist who wants to convince people that we need to take care of the environment. They might use facts and statistics about how global temperatures are going up to logically explain why we should take action. This way, they’re using logos to make their point.

Metaphors and Similes

These devices compare one thing to another, often in a way that helps clarify complex ideas or make a message more memorable. A writer might say, “Injustice is a poison that corrupts society,” using a metaphor to liken injustice to poison to emphasize its harmful effects.

This involves deliberate exaggeration to emphasize a point or evoke strong feelings. For instance, a person might say, “I’ve told you a million times.” This hyperbole highlights their frustration or repeated efforts.

Repeating words, phrases, or ideas can reinforce a message and make it more memorable. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech is an excellent example of repetition. The phrase “I have a dream” is reiterated multiple times throughout the speech, powerfully underscoring his vision for equality and justice. Each repetition of this phrase reinforces his hopeful message and leaves a lasting impact on the audience

Identifying Rhetorical Devices in a Text

Recognizing rhetorical devices in text is an essential reading skill that deepens your understanding of how authors convey meaning and persuade their audience. Here’s how you can sharpen your ability to identify these devices as you read:

1. Familiarize Yourself with Common Devices

Start by building a strong foundation. Understand the definitions, purposes, and effects of common rhetorical devices like ethos, pathos, logos, metaphors, hyperbole, and repetition. Knowing what each device looks like and how it typically operates in text will prepare you to spot them more easily.

• Practice Tip: Create a reference chart of devices with definitions and examples. Refer to this chart as you read, and try to match passages with the relevant device. You can also refer to this handy list for a great starting point!

2. Read Actively and Critically

Engage with the text on a deeper level. As you read, be mindful of the author’s word choice, sentence structure, and the overall tone. Ask yourself why the author might have chosen a particular word or phrase and what effect it creates.

• Practice Tip: Highlight or note down sentences or passages where you suspect a rhetorical device is at play. Then, analyze why you think a device is used and what it’s achieving.

3. Look for Patterns and Anomalies

Rhetorical devices often manifest as patterns in the text. Repetition of words, phrases, or ideas; patterns in imagery or metaphors; or even a sudden change in tone or style can all be clues. Conversely, anomalies or deviations from the norm can also signal rhetorical emphasis.

• Practice Tip : As you read, mark recurring themes or language patterns. Consider how these repetitions or anomalies contribute to the text’s persuasive or emotional impact.

4. Consider the Context

Every text exists within a specific context that influences its content and style. Understand the historical, cultural, and personal background of the text. Consider the intended audience and the author’s purpose. This context can provide valuable clues about why certain rhetorical devices are used.

• Practice Tip: Before diving into a text, do a quick research on its background. As you read, keep the context in mind and think about how it might shape the choice of rhetorical devices.

5. Analyze the Structure

The organization of a text can reveal a lot about its rhetorical strategies. Look at the structure of arguments, the progression of ideas, and the placement of particularly persuasive or emotional sections.

• Practice Tip: Create an outline of the text’s structure as you read. Note where key devices appear and how they contribute to the overall argument or message.

By focusing on these specific reading strategies, you’ll become more adept at noticing and understanding the subtle ways authors use rhetorical devices to enhance their messages. Remember, like any skill, identifying rhetorical devices improves with regular practice and thoughtful engagement with a wide range of texts.

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Rhetorical Devices

After you’ve identified rhetorical devices in a text, the next step is to analyze their effectiveness. This involves understanding not just how these devices are used, but why they’re used, and what impact they have on the audience. Here’s how you can approach this analysis:

1. Assess the Context

 Understanding when and where a piece of writing was created is key to knowing why the author used certain words or phrases. Think about the time period and the place it comes from. Also, consider who the author was speaking to and what was going on at that time. These details can help you understand why the writer chose to use certain language and how well it worked.

2. Evaluate the Purpose

Next, ask yourself what the writer wanted to achieve. Did they want to convince the readers, give them information, entertain them, or inspire them? Writers use different ways of speaking to reach their goals. By figuring out the writer’s main goal, you can better judge if they used the right approach and how effective it was.

3. Consider the Audience’s Reaction

4. check how the rhetorical devices fit in.

See how well the rhetorical devices fit into the writing. Do they blend in smoothly, or do they stick out awkwardly? When used well, these tools should make the writing better and clearer. If they don’t fit well, they might make the writing hard to understand or take away from the main point.

5. Think About Right and Wrong

Think about whether the language tools are used in a good and honest way. Are they used to share the truth and respect the readers, or are they used to trick or mislead them? Using these tools in the right way can make the writer seem more believable and trustworthy. But using them in the wrong way can make people doubt what the writer is saying.

6. Compare Other Texts

To put your analysis into perspective, compare the use of rhetorical devices in the text with their use in other well-known works. How are the strategies different? What makes some more effective than others? This comparative approach can deepen your understanding of rhetorical effectiveness.

7. Reflect on Personal Impact

Finally, think about your own reaction to the text. Were you persuaded, moved, or inspired? Your personal response can be a powerful indicator of the rhetorical devices’ effectiveness

By closely looking at these parts, you’ll learn more about how language tools work and what makes them good or not so good. This skill is useful for school and helps you think more about the different ways people talk and write in everyday life.

Analyzing Rhetorical Devices in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail ” by Martin Luther King, Jr

Analyzing rhetorical devices isn’t just an academic exercise; it’s a way to deepen your understanding of influential texts and the strategies that make them powerful. A prime example for this kind of analysis is Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” an important text in the Civil Rights movement. Here’s how you can use this letter to practice your reading skills through rhetorical analysis:

Before you read “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” know the background. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote it in 1963 while he was in jail in Birmingham, Alabama. He was there because he was protesting for equal rights. He wrote the letter to respond to some church leaders who didn’t agree with his protests. Understanding this time and why King was in jail helps you see why he wrote what he did.

King wrote the letter to explain why he believed protesting against unfair laws was right and needed. He wanted to convince his critics and others that not fighting against racism was wrong. Knowing what King wanted to achieve with his letter helps you understand why he chose certain words and ways of explaining his thoughts.

Think about how the people King was writing to, the eight church leaders, and others might have felt when they read his letter. King used religious references and talked about moral issues because he thought these points would really hit home for them. Also, think about how others who were for or against equal rights at the time might have reacted to his words

4. Check How the Rhetorical Devices Fit It

Look at how King uses rhetorical devices in his letter.

Ethos (Credibility/Trustworthiness):

• King’s Role and Experience: King tells readers he’s the leader of an important group that works all over the south. He says, “I am the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.” This makes people see him as a leader with a lot of experience.
• Moral Standing: King talks about his strong beliefs and compares himself to people from the Bible to show he’s doing the right thing. He mentions famous religious figures, making people see him as someone with good values. He mentions, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their ‘thus saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their home towns…” highlighting the comparison between him and other religious figures the clergy would have respected.

Pathos (Emotional Appeal)

• The Pain and Struggle: King vividly describes the experiences of African Americans, evoking emotions to make the readers feel the urgency and pain of the racial situation.He talks about families being hurt and people living in fear.
• Hope and Despair: He contrasts the hope of the civil rights movement with the despair caused by racism, creating an emotional rollercoaster that compels the audience to empathize and act. He expresses, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

Logos (Logical Appeal)

• Reasons for Protests: King explains clearly why they need to protest. He says they’re protesting because promises are broken and people are treated unfairly. He makes it clear that they have to stand up for what’s right.
• Counterarguments: He thinks about what his critics say and answers them. For example, when people call him an “outsider,” he responds by saying, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This phrase emphasizes his right to be involved in these matters because injustice is a universal issue that needs to be addressed.
• Phrasal Repetition: King repeats certain phrases to make his message stronger. For instance, he starts many sentences with “When you” to show how often immoral actions happen to the African American community. This helps make his point clearer and stick in the reader’s mind.
• Anaphora (Repeating the start of sentences): He often starts sentences with the same words, like “I am here because,” to stress his reasons for being in Birmingham. This makes his reasons stand out and easier to remember.

Reflect on how King uses his words in a fair and honest way. He makes strong points about what’s morally right and wrong but does it respectfully. He’s not trying to trick anyone; he’s trying to show them the truth and get them to think differently about the situation.

6. Compare with Other Texts

Look at King’s letter and compare it with other important writings or speeches from the same time or even other works by King himself. Notice how they are similar or different in the way they try to convince and inspire people. This can help you understand more about how words can be used to make a big impact.

Lastly, think about how the letter makes you feel. Are there certain parts that stand out to you or make you feel strongly? Thinking about your own reactions can help you see just how powerful King’s words are and why they are still remembered and talked about today.

By looking closely at “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” you not only improve your ability to notice and analyze the rhetorical devices King uses but also grow to appreciate this powerful and important letter in a new way. This study will help you become a better reader who understands and thinks more about what you read, seeing beyond just the words on the page.

Practice Makes Perfect

Like any skill, proficiency in identifying and analyzing rhetorical devices comes with practice. It’s one thing to understand these strategies in theory, but it’s another to apply this knowledge actively and see it in action. That’s why we encourage you to take what you’ve learned here and put it into practice.

Albert provides many opportunities for you to practice these rhetorical analysis skills. Whether you want to improve before the AP® Language and Composition Exam or gain a deeper understanding of how authors used rhetoric in essential historic texts , Albert has you covered! Every question includes a detailed explanation of the correct answer and the distractors so you can learn as you go.

Remember, the more you practice, the more intuitive and insightful your rhetorical analysis will become. Rhetorical devices are not just academic concepts; they are practical tools that can enhance your reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. So, take advantage of Albert’s resources, and start practicing today. With dedication and practice, you’ll soon find yourself mastering the art of persuasion and the nuances of effective communication.

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(3); 2018 Jun

Using rhetorical appeals to credibility, logic, and emotions to increase your persuasiveness

Lara varpio.

Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD USA

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

Scientific research is, for many, the epitome of objectivity and rationality. But, as Burke reminds us, conveying the meaning of our research to others involves persuasion. In other words, when I write a research manuscript, I must construct an argument to persuade the reader to accept my rationality .

While asserting that scientific findings must be persuasively conveyed may seem contradictory, it is simply a consequence of how we conduct research. Scientific research is a social activity centred on answering challenging questions. When these questions are answered, the solutions we propose are just that—propositions. Our solutions are accepted by the community until another, better proposition offers a more compelling explanation. In other words, everything we know is accepted for now but not forever .

This means that when we write up our research findings, we need to be persuasive. We must convince readers to accept our findings and the conclusions we draw from them. That acceptance may require dethroning widely held perspectives. It may require having the reader adopt new ways of thinking about a phenomenon. It may require convincing the audience that other, highly respected researchers are wrong. Regardless of the argument I want the reader to accept, I have to persuade the reader to agree with me .

Therefore, being a successful researcher requires developing the skills of persuasion—the skills of a rhetorician. Fortunately for the readers of Perspectives on Medical Education, The Writer’s Craft series offers a treasure trove of rhetorical tools that health professions education researchers can mine.

A primary lesson of rhetoric was developed by Aristotle. He studied rhetoric analytically, investigating all the means of persuasion available in a given situation. He identified three appeals at play in all acts of persuasion: ethos, logos and pathos. The first is focused on the author, the second on the argument, the third on the reader. Together, they support effective persuasion, and so can be harnessed by researchers to powerfully convey the meaning of their research.

Ethos is the appeal focused on the writer. It refers to the character of the writer, including her credibility and trustworthiness. The reader must be convinced that the author is an authority and merits attention. In scientific research, the author must establish her credibility as a rigorous and expert researcher. Much of an author’s ethos, then, lies in using well-reasoned and justified research methodologies and methods. But, a writer’s credibility can be bolstered using a number of rhetorical techniques including similitude and deference .

Similitude appeals to similarities between the author and the reader to create a sense of mutual identification. Using pronouns like we and us, the writer reinforces commonality with the reader and so encourages a sense of cohesion and community. To illustrate, consider the following:

While burnout continues to plague our residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

While burnout continues to plague residents , medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. Medical educators owe it to their residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

In the first sentence, the author aligns herself with the community of medical educators involved in residency education. The writer is part of the we who has to support residents. She makes the burnout problem something she and the reader are both called upon to address. In the second sentence, the author separates herself from this community of educators. She creates social distance between herself and the reader, and thus places the burden of resolving the problem more squarely on the shoulders of the reader than herself.

Both phrasings are equally correct, grammatically. One creates social connection, the other social distance.

Deference is a way for the author to signal respect for others, and personal humility. The writer can demonstrate deference by using phrases such as in my opinion , or through the use of adjectives (e.g., Smith rigorously studied) or adverbs (e.g., the important work by Jones). For example:

The thoughtful research conducted by Jane Doe et al. suggests that resident burnout is more prevalent among those learners who were shamed by attending physicians. Echoing the calls of others [ 1 ], we contend that this work should be extended to also consider the role of fellow learners as potential contributors to resident experiences of burnout.

In this sentence, the author does not present Jane Doe and colleagues as weak researchers, nor as developing findings that should be rejected. Instead, it shows deference to these researchers by acknowledging the quality of their research and a willingness to build on the foundation provided by their findings. (Note how the author also builds ethos via similitude with other scholars by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that other researchers have also called for more research on the author’s suggested extension of Doe’s work).

Readers pick up on the respect authors pay to other researchers. Being rude or unkind in our writing rarely achieves anything except reflecting poorly on the writer.

In sum, as my grandmother used to say: ‘You’ll slide farther on honey than gravel.’ Establishing similitude and showing deference helps to establish your ethos as an author. They help the writer make honey, not gravel.

Logos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the argument being presented by the author. It is an appeal to rationality, referring to the clarity and logical integrity of the argument. Logos is, therefore, primarily rooted in the reasoning that holds different elements of the manuscript’s argument together. Do the findings logically connect to support the conclusion being drawn? Are there errors in the author’s reasoning (i.e., logical fallacies) that undermine the logic presented in the manuscript? Logical fallacies will undercut the persuasive power of a manuscript. Authors are well advised to spend time mapping out the premises of their arguments and how they logically lead to the conclusions being drawn, avoiding common errors in reasoning (see Purdue’s on-line writing lab [ 2 ] for 12 of the most common logical fallacies that plague authors, complete with definitions and examples).

However, logos is not merely contained in the logic of the argument itself. Logos is only achieved if the reader is able to follow the author’s logic. To support the reader’s ability to process the logical argument presented in the manuscript, authors can use signposting. Signposting is often accomplished via words (e.g., first, next, specifically, alternatively, also, consequently, etc.) and phrases (e.g., as a result, and yet, for example, in conclusion, etc.) that help the reader to follow the line of reasoning as it moves through the manuscript. Signposts indicate to the reader the structure of the argument to come, where they are in the argument at the moment, and/or what they can expect to come next. Consider the following sentence from one of my own manuscripts. This is the last sentence in the Introduction [ 3 ]:

This study addresses these gaps by investigating the following questions: How often are residents taught informally by physicians and nurses in clinical settings? What competencies are informally taught to residents by physicians and nurses? What teaching techniques are used by physicians and nurses to deliver informal education?

At the end of the Introduction, this sentence offers a map to the reader of how the paper’s argument will develop. The reader can now expect that the manuscript will address each of these questions, in this order. I could also use large-scale signposting, such as sub-headings in the Results, to organize the reading of data related to each of these questions. In the Discussion, I can use small-scale signpost terms and phrases (i.e., however, in contrast, in addition, finally, etc.) to help the reader follow the progression of the argument I am presenting .

I must offer one word of caution here: be sure to use your signposts precisely. If not, your writing will not be logically developed and you will weaken the logos at work in the manuscript. For instance, however signposts a contrasting or contradicting idea:

I enjoy working with residents; however , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

If the writer uses the wrong signpost, the meaning of the sentence falls apart, and so does the logos:

I enjoy working with residents; alternatively , I loathe completing in-training evaluation reports.

Alternatively indicates a different option or possibility. This sentence does not present two different alternatives; it presents two contrasting ideas. Using alternatively confuses the meaning of the sentence, and thus impairs logos.

With clear and precise signposting, the reader will easily follow your argument across the manuscript. This supports the logos you develop as you guide the reader to your conclusions.

Pathos is the rhetorical appeal that focuses on the reader. Pathos refers to the emotions that are stirred in the reader while reading the manuscript. The author should seek to trigger specific emotional reactions in their writing. And, yes, there is room for emotions in scientific research articles. Some of my favourite manuscripts in The Writer’s Craft series are those that help authors elicit specific emotions from the reader.

For instance, in Joining the conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic Lingard highlights the importance of ‘hooking’ your audience. The hook ‘convinces readers that this gap [in the current literature] is of consequence’ [ 4 ]. The author must persuade the reader that the argument is important and worthy of the reader’s attention. This is an appeal to the readers’ emotions.

Another example is found in Bonfire red titles. As Lingard explains, the title of your manuscript is ‘advertising for what is inside your research paper’ [ 5 ]. The title must attract the readers’ attention and create a desire within them to read your manuscript. Here, again, is pathos in action in a scientific research paper: grab the reader’s attention from the very first word of the title.

Beyond those already addressed in The Writer’s Craft series, another rhetorical technique that appeals to the emotions of the reader is the strategic use of God-terms [ 1 ] . Burke defined God-terms as words or phrases that are ‘the ultimates of motivation,’ embodying characteristics that are fundamentally valued by humans. To use an analogy from card games (e.g., bridge or euchre), God-terms are like emotional trump cards. God-terms like freedom, justice, and duty call on shared human values, trumping contradictory feelings. By alluding to God-terms in our research, we increase the emotional appeal of our writing. Let us reconsider the example from above:

While burnout continues to plague our residents, medical educators have yet to identify the root causes of this problem. We owe it to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service .

Here, the author reminds the reader that residents will be in service as physicians for their lifetime, and that we have a  duty (i.e., we owe it ) to support them in that calling to meet the public’s healthcare needs. Invoking the God-terms of service and duty, the writer taps into the reader’s sense of responsibility to support these learners.

It is important not to overplay pathos in a scientific research paper—i.e., readers are keenly intelligent scholars who will easily identify emotional exaggeration. Consider this variation on the previous example:

While burnout continues to ruin the lives of our residents, medical educators have neglected to identify the root causes of this problem. We have a moral obligation to our residents to delve into this area of inquiry to secure their wellbeing over their lifetime of clinical service.

This rephrasing is likely to create a sense of unease in the reader because of the emotional exaggerations it uses. By over-amplifying the appeals to emotion, this rephrasing elicits feelings of refusal and rejection in the reader. Instead of drawing the reader in, it pushes the reader away. When it comes to pathos, a light hand is best.

Peter Gould famously stated: ‘data can never speak for themselves’ [ 6 ]. Researchers must explain them. In that explaining, we endeavour to convince the audience that our propositions should be accepted. While the science in our research is at the core of that persuasion, there are techniques from rhetoric that can help us convince readers to accept our arguments. Ethos, logos and pathos are appeals that, when used intentionally and judiciously, can buoy the persuasive power of your manuscripts.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States of America’s Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

PhD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, MD. Her program of research investigates the many kinds of teams involved in health professions education (e.g., interprofessional clinical care teams, health professions education scholarship unit teams, etc.). A self-professed ‘theory junky’, she uses theories from the social sciences and humanities, and qualitative methods/methodologies to build practical, theory-based knowledge.

Wherever there is meaning there is persuasion. —Kenneth Burke [ 1 ]

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write a literary analysis essay | A step-by-step guide

How to Write a Literary Analysis Essay | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on January 30, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on August 14, 2023.

Literary analysis means closely studying a text, interpreting its meanings, and exploring why the author made certain choices. It can be applied to novels, short stories, plays, poems, or any other form of literary writing.

A literary analysis essay is not a rhetorical analysis , nor is it just a summary of the plot or a book review. Instead, it is a type of argumentative essay where you need to analyze elements such as the language, perspective, and structure of the text, and explain how the author uses literary devices to create effects and convey ideas.

Before beginning a literary analysis essay, it’s essential to carefully read the text and c ome up with a thesis statement to keep your essay focused. As you write, follow the standard structure of an academic essay :

• An introduction that tells the reader what your essay will focus on.
• A main body, divided into paragraphs , that builds an argument using evidence from the text.
• A conclusion that clearly states the main point that you have shown with your analysis.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Step 1: reading the text and identifying literary devices, step 2: coming up with a thesis, step 3: writing a title and introduction, step 4: writing the body of the essay, step 5: writing a conclusion, other interesting articles.

The first step is to carefully read the text(s) and take initial notes. As you read, pay attention to the things that are most intriguing, surprising, or even confusing in the writing—these are things you can dig into in your analysis.

Your goal in literary analysis is not simply to explain the events described in the text, but to analyze the writing itself and discuss how the text works on a deeper level. Primarily, you’re looking out for literary devices —textual elements that writers use to convey meaning and create effects. If you’re comparing and contrasting multiple texts, you can also look for connections between different texts.

To get started with your analysis, there are several key areas that you can focus on. As you analyze each aspect of the text, try to think about how they all relate to each other. You can use highlights or notes to keep track of important passages and quotes.

Language choices

Consider what style of language the author uses. Are the sentences short and simple or more complex and poetic?

What word choices stand out as interesting or unusual? Are words used figuratively to mean something other than their literal definition? Figurative language includes things like metaphor (e.g. “her eyes were oceans”) and simile (e.g. “her eyes were like oceans”).

Also keep an eye out for imagery in the text—recurring images that create a certain atmosphere or symbolize something important. Remember that language is used in literary texts to say more than it means on the surface.

Narrative voice

Ask yourself:

• Who is telling the story?
• How are they telling it?

Is it a first-person narrator (“I”) who is personally involved in the story, or a third-person narrator who tells us about the characters from a distance?

Consider the narrator’s perspective . Is the narrator omniscient (where they know everything about all the characters and events), or do they only have partial knowledge? Are they an unreliable narrator who we are not supposed to take at face value? Authors often hint that their narrator might be giving us a distorted or dishonest version of events.

The tone of the text is also worth considering. Is the story intended to be comic, tragic, or something else? Are usually serious topics treated as funny, or vice versa ? Is the story realistic or fantastical (or somewhere in between)?

Consider how the text is structured, and how the structure relates to the story being told.

• Novels are often divided into chapters and parts.
• Poems are divided into lines, stanzas, and sometime cantos.
• Plays are divided into scenes and acts.

Think about why the author chose to divide the different parts of the text in the way they did.

There are also less formal structural elements to take into account. Does the story unfold in chronological order, or does it jump back and forth in time? Does it begin in medias res —in the middle of the action? Does the plot advance towards a clearly defined climax?

With poetry, consider how the rhyme and meter shape your understanding of the text and your impression of the tone. Try reading the poem aloud to get a sense of this.

In a play, you might consider how relationships between characters are built up through different scenes, and how the setting relates to the action. Watch out for  dramatic irony , where the audience knows some detail that the characters don’t, creating a double meaning in their words, thoughts, or actions.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Your thesis in a literary analysis essay is the point you want to make about the text. It’s the core argument that gives your essay direction and prevents it from just being a collection of random observations about a text.

If you’re given a prompt for your essay, your thesis must answer or relate to the prompt. For example:

Essay question example

Is Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” a religious parable?

Your thesis statement should be an answer to this question—not a simple yes or no, but a statement of why this is or isn’t the case:

Thesis statement example

Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” is not a religious parable, but a story about bureaucratic alienation.

Sometimes you’ll be given freedom to choose your own topic; in this case, you’ll have to come up with an original thesis. Consider what stood out to you in the text; ask yourself questions about the elements that interested you, and consider how you might answer them.

Your thesis should be something arguable—that is, something that you think is true about the text, but which is not a simple matter of fact. It must be complex enough to develop through evidence and arguments across the course of your essay.

Say you’re analyzing the novel Frankenstein . You could start by asking yourself:

Your initial answer might be a surface-level description:

The character Frankenstein is portrayed negatively in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein .

However, this statement is too simple to be an interesting thesis. After reading the text and analyzing its narrative voice and structure, you can develop the answer into a more nuanced and arguable thesis statement:

Mary Shelley uses shifting narrative perspectives to portray Frankenstein in an increasingly negative light as the novel goes on. While he initially appears to be a naive but sympathetic idealist, after the creature’s narrative Frankenstein begins to resemble—even in his own telling—the thoughtlessly cruel figure the creature represents him as.

Remember that you can revise your thesis statement throughout the writing process , so it doesn’t need to be perfectly formulated at this stage. The aim is to keep you focused as you analyze the text.

Finding textual evidence

To support your thesis statement, your essay will build an argument using textual evidence —specific parts of the text that demonstrate your point. This evidence is quoted and analyzed throughout your essay to explain your argument to the reader.

It can be useful to comb through the text in search of relevant quotations before you start writing. You might not end up using everything you find, and you may have to return to the text for more evidence as you write, but collecting textual evidence from the beginning will help you to structure your arguments and assess whether they’re convincing.

To start your literary analysis paper, you’ll need two things: a good title, and an introduction.

Your title should clearly indicate what your analysis will focus on. It usually contains the name of the author and text(s) you’re analyzing. Keep it as concise and engaging as possible.

A common approach to the title is to use a relevant quote from the text, followed by a colon and then the rest of your title.

If you struggle to come up with a good title at first, don’t worry—this will be easier once you’ve begun writing the essay and have a better sense of your arguments.

“Fearful symmetry” : The violence of creation in William Blake’s “The Tyger”

The introduction

The essay introduction provides a quick overview of where your argument is going. It should include your thesis statement and a summary of the essay’s structure.

A typical structure for an introduction is to begin with a general statement about the text and author, using this to lead into your thesis statement. You might refer to a commonly held idea about the text and show how your thesis will contradict it, or zoom in on a particular device you intend to focus on.

Then you can end with a brief indication of what’s coming up in the main body of the essay. This is called signposting. It will be more elaborate in longer essays, but in a short five-paragraph essay structure, it shouldn’t be more than one sentence.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a crude cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific advancement unrestrained by ethical considerations. In this reading, protagonist Victor Frankenstein is a stable representation of the callous ambition of modern science throughout the novel. This essay, however, argues that far from providing a stable image of the character, Shelley uses shifting narrative perspectives to portray Frankenstein in an increasingly negative light as the novel goes on. While he initially appears to be a naive but sympathetic idealist, after the creature’s narrative Frankenstein begins to resemble—even in his own telling—the thoughtlessly cruel figure the creature represents him as. This essay begins by exploring the positive portrayal of Frankenstein in the first volume, then moves on to the creature’s perception of him, and finally discusses the third volume’s narrative shift toward viewing Frankenstein as the creature views him.

Some students prefer to write the introduction later in the process, and it’s not a bad idea. After all, you’ll have a clearer idea of the overall shape of your arguments once you’ve begun writing them!

If you do write the introduction first, you should still return to it later to make sure it lines up with what you ended up writing, and edit as necessary.

The body of your essay is everything between the introduction and conclusion. It contains your arguments and the textual evidence that supports them.

Paragraph structure

A typical structure for a high school literary analysis essay consists of five paragraphs : the three paragraphs of the body, plus the introduction and conclusion.

Each paragraph in the main body should focus on one topic. In the five-paragraph model, try to divide your argument into three main areas of analysis, all linked to your thesis. Don’t try to include everything you can think of to say about the text—only analysis that drives your argument.

In longer essays, the same principle applies on a broader scale. For example, you might have two or three sections in your main body, each with multiple paragraphs. Within these sections, you still want to begin new paragraphs at logical moments—a turn in the argument or the introduction of a new idea.

Robert’s first encounter with Gil-Martin suggests something of his sinister power. Robert feels “a sort of invisible power that drew me towards him.” He identifies the moment of their meeting as “the beginning of a series of adventures which has puzzled myself, and will puzzle the world when I am no more in it” (p. 89). Gil-Martin’s “invisible power” seems to be at work even at this distance from the moment described; before continuing the story, Robert feels compelled to anticipate at length what readers will make of his narrative after his approaching death. With this interjection, Hogg emphasizes the fatal influence Gil-Martin exercises from his first appearance.

Topic sentences

To keep your points focused, it’s important to use a topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph.

A good topic sentence allows a reader to see at a glance what the paragraph is about. It can introduce a new line of argument and connect or contrast it with the previous paragraph. Transition words like “however” or “moreover” are useful for creating smooth transitions:

… The story’s focus, therefore, is not upon the divine revelation that may be waiting beyond the door, but upon the mundane process of aging undergone by the man as he waits.

Nevertheless, the “radiance” that appears to stream from the door is typically treated as religious symbolism.

This topic sentence signals that the paragraph will address the question of religious symbolism, while the linking word “nevertheless” points out a contrast with the previous paragraph’s conclusion.

Using textual evidence

A key part of literary analysis is backing up your arguments with relevant evidence from the text. This involves introducing quotes from the text and explaining their significance to your point.

It’s important to contextualize quotes and explain why you’re using them; they should be properly introduced and analyzed, not treated as self-explanatory:

It isn’t always necessary to use a quote. Quoting is useful when you’re discussing the author’s language, but sometimes you’ll have to refer to plot points or structural elements that can’t be captured in a short quote.

In these cases, it’s more appropriate to paraphrase or summarize parts of the text—that is, to describe the relevant part in your own words:

The conclusion of your analysis shouldn’t introduce any new quotations or arguments. Instead, it’s about wrapping up the essay. Here, you summarize your key points and try to emphasize their significance to the reader.

A good way to approach this is to briefly summarize your key arguments, and then stress the conclusion they’ve led you to, highlighting the new perspective your thesis provides on the text as a whole:

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

By tracing the depiction of Frankenstein through the novel’s three volumes, I have demonstrated how the narrative structure shifts our perception of the character. While the Frankenstein of the first volume is depicted as having innocent intentions, the second and third volumes—first in the creature’s accusatory voice, and then in his own voice—increasingly undermine him, causing him to appear alternately ridiculous and vindictive. Far from the one-dimensional villain he is often taken to be, the character of Frankenstein is compelling because of the dynamic narrative frame in which he is placed. In this frame, Frankenstein’s narrative self-presentation responds to the images of him we see from others’ perspectives. This conclusion sheds new light on the novel, foregrounding Shelley’s unique layering of narrative perspectives and its importance for the depiction of character.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, August 14). How to Write a Literary Analysis Essay | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved October 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/literary-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, how to write a narrative essay | example & tips, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Construction of a Corpus of Rhetorical Devices in Slogans and Structural Analysis of Antitheses

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations.

• Ha Y Dinh T (2024) The Analysis of Implicatures in Vietnamese Local Brand Slogans ICTE Conference Proceedings 10.54855/ictep.24510 5 (118-129) Online publication date: 25-Sep-2024 https://doi.org/10.54855/ictep.24510

Index Terms

Computing methodologies

Artificial intelligence

Natural language processing

Information extraction

Language resources

Recommendations

Construction of mizo: english parallel corpus for machine translation.

Parallel corpus is a key component of statistical and Neural Machine Translation (NMT). While most research focuses on machine translation, corpus creation studies are limited for many languages, and no research paper on a Mizo–English corpus exists yet. ...

Building a comprehensive syntactic and semantic corpus of Chinese clinical texts

Display Omitted We constructed a comprehensive syntactic and semantic corpus of Chinese clinical texts.Several annotation guidelines and an annotation method for Chinese clinical texts were proposed.Inter-annotator agreement evaluation shows that this ...

Morphological Analysis Corpus Construction of Uyghur

Morphological analysis is a fundamental task in natural language processing, and results can be applied to different downstream tasks such as named entity recognition, syntactic analysis, and machine translation. However, there are many problems ...

Information

Published in.

Google, USA

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, author tags.

• Advertising slogan
• corpus construction
• rhetorical device
• structural analysis
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 1 Total Citations View Citations
• 134 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 23
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 4

View Options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

9.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically about Rhetoric

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Develop a rhetorical analysis through multiple drafts.
• Identify and analyze rhetorical strategies in a rhetorical analysis.
• Demonstrate flexible strategies for generating ideas, drafting, reviewing, collaborating, revising, rewriting, and editing.
• Give and act on productive feedback for works in progress.

The ability to think critically about rhetoric is a skill you will use in many of your classes, in your work, and in your life to gain insight from the way a text is written and organized. You will often be asked to explain or to express an opinion about what someone else has communicated and how that person has done so, especially if you take an active interest in politics and government. Like Eliana Evans in the previous section, you will develop similar analyses of written works to help others understand how a writer or speaker may be trying to reach them.

Summary of Assignment: Rhetorical Analysis

The assignment is to write a rhetorical analysis of a piece of persuasive writing. It can be an editorial, a movie or book review, an essay, a chapter in a book, or a letter to the editor. For your rhetorical analysis, you will need to consider the rhetorical situation—subject, author, purpose, context, audience, and culture—and the strategies the author uses in creating the argument. Back up all your claims with evidence from the text. In preparing your analysis, consider these questions:

• What is the subject? Be sure to distinguish what the piece is about.
• Who is the writer, and what do you know about them? Be sure you know whether the writer is considered objective or has a particular agenda.
• Who are the readers? What do you know or what can you find out about them as the particular audience to be addressed at this moment?
• What is the purpose or aim of this work? What does the author hope to achieve?
• What are the time/space/place considerations and influences of the writer? What can you know about the writer and the full context in which they are writing?
• What specific techniques has the writer used to make their points? Are these techniques successful, unsuccessful, or questionable?

For this assignment, read the following opinion piece by Octavio Peterson, printed in his local newspaper. You may choose it as the text you will analyze, continuing the analysis on your own, or you may refer to it as a sample as you work on another text of your choosing. Your instructor may suggest presidential or other political speeches, which make good subjects for rhetorical analysis.

When you have read the piece by Peterson advocating for the need to continue teaching foreign languages in schools, reflect carefully on the impact the letter has had on you. You are not expected to agree or disagree with it. Instead, focus on the rhetoric—the way Peterson uses language to make his point and convince you of the validity of his argument.

Another Lens. Consider presenting your rhetorical analysis in a multimodal format. Use a blogging site or platform such as WordPress or Tumblr to explore the blogging genre, which includes video clips, images, hyperlinks, and other media to further your discussion. Because this genre is less formal than written text, your tone can be conversational. However, you still will be required to provide the same kind of analysis that you would in a traditional essay. The same materials will be at your disposal for making appeals to persuade your readers. Rhetorical analysis in a blog may be a new forum for the exchange of ideas that retains the basics of more formal communication. When you have completed your work, share it with a small group or the rest of the class. See Multimodal and Online Writing: Creative Interaction between Text and Image for more about creating a multimodal composition.

Quick Launch: Start with a Thesis Statement

After you have read this opinion piece, or another of your choice, several times and have a clear understanding of it as a piece of rhetoric, consider whether the writer has succeeded in being persuasive. You might find that in some ways they have and in others they have not. Then, with a clear understanding of your purpose—to analyze how the writer seeks to persuade—you can start framing a thesis statement : a declarative sentence that states the topic, the angle you are taking, and the aspects of the topic the rest of the paper will support.

Complete the following sentence frames as you prepare to start:

• The subject of my rhetorical analysis is ________.
• My goal is to ________, not necessarily to ________.
• The writer’s main point is ________.
• I believe the writer has succeeded (or not) because ________.
• I believe the writer has succeeded in ________ (name the part or parts) but not in ________ (name the part or parts).
• The writer’s strongest (or weakest) point is ________, which they present by ________.

Drafting: Text Evidence and Analysis of Effect

As you begin to draft your rhetorical analysis, remember that you are giving your opinion on the author’s use of language. For example, Peterson has made a decision about the teaching of foreign languages, something readers of the newspaper might have different views on. In other words, there is room for debate and persuasion.

The context of the situation in which Peterson finds himself may well be more complex than he discusses. In the same way, the context of the piece you choose to analyze may also be more complex. For example, perhaps Greendale is facing an economic crisis and must pare its budget for educational spending and public works. It’s also possible that elected officials have made budget cuts for education a part of their platform or that school buildings have been found obsolete for safety measures. On the other hand, maybe a foreign company will come to town only if more Spanish speakers can be found locally. These factors would play a part in a real situation, and rhetoric would reflect that. If applicable, consider such possibilities regarding the subject of your analysis. Here, however, these factors are unknown and thus do not enter into the analysis.

Introduction

One effective way to begin a rhetorical analysis is by using an anecdote, as Eliana Evans has done. For a rhetorical analysis of the opinion piece, a writer might consider an anecdote about a person who was in a situation in which knowing another language was important or not important. If they begin with an anecdote, the next part of the introduction should contain the following information:

• Author’s name and position, or other qualification to establish ethos
• Title of work and genre
• Author’s thesis statement or stance taken (“Peterson argues that . . .”)
• Brief introductory explanation of how the author develops and supports the thesis or stance
• If relevant, a brief summary of context and culture

Once the context and situation for the analysis are clear, move directly to your thesis statement. In this case, your thesis statement will be your opinion of how successful the author has been in achieving the established goal through the use of rhetorical strategies. Read the sentences in Table 9.1 , and decide which would make the best thesis statement. Explain your reasoning in the right-hand column of this or a similar chart.

The introductory paragraph or paragraphs should serve to move the reader into the body of the analysis and signal what will follow.

Your next step is to start supporting your thesis statement—that is, how Octavio Peterson, or the writer of your choice, does or does not succeed in persuading readers. To accomplish this purpose, you need to look closely at the rhetorical strategies the writer uses.

First, list the rhetorical strategies you notice while reading the text, and note where they appear. Keep in mind that you do not need to include every strategy the text contains, only those essential ones that emphasize or support the central argument and those that may seem fallacious. You may add other strategies as well. The first example in Table 9.2 has been filled in.

When you have completed your list, consider how to structure your analysis. You will have to decide which of the writer’s statements are most effective. The strongest point would be a good place to begin; conversely, you could begin with the writer’s weakest point if that suits your purposes better. The most obvious organizational structure is one of the following:

• Go through the composition paragraph by paragraph and analyze its rhetorical content, focusing on the strategies that support the writer’s thesis statement.
• Address key rhetorical strategies individually, and show how the author has used them.

As you read the next few paragraphs, consult Table 9.3 for a visual plan of your rhetorical analysis. Your first body paragraph is the first of the analytical paragraphs. Here, too, you have options for organizing. You might begin by stating the writer’s strongest point. For example, you could emphasize that Peterson appeals to ethos by speaking personally to readers as fellow citizens and providing his credentials to establish credibility as someone trustworthy with their interests at heart.

Following this point, your next one can focus, for instance, on Peterson’s view that cutting foreign language instruction is a danger to the education of Greendale’s children. The points that follow support this argument, and you can track his rhetoric as he does so.

You may then use the second or third body paragraph, connected by a transition, to discuss Peterson’s appeal to logos. One possible transition might read, “To back up his assertion that omitting foreign languages is detrimental to education, Peterson provides examples and statistics.” Locate examples and quotes from the text as needed. You can discuss how, in citing these statistics, Peterson uses logos as a key rhetorical strategy.

In another paragraph, focus on other rhetorical elements, such as parallelism, repetition, and rhetorical questions. Moreover, be sure to indicate whether the writer acknowledges counterclaims and whether they are accepted or ultimately rejected.

The question of other factors at work in Greendale regarding finances, or similar factors in another setting, may be useful to mention here if they exist. As you continue, however, keep returning to your list of rhetorical strategies and explaining them. Even if some appear less important, they should be noted to show that you recognize how the writer is using language. You will likely have a minimum of four body paragraphs, but you may well have six or seven or even more, depending on the work you are analyzing.

In your final body paragraph, you might discuss the argument that Peterson, for example, has made by appealing to readers’ emotions. His calls for solidarity at the end of the letter provide a possible solution to his concern that the foreign language curriculum “might vanish like a puff of smoke.”

Use Table 9.3 to organize your rhetorical analysis. Be sure that each paragraph has a topic sentence and that you use transitions to flow smoothly from one idea to the next.

As you conclude your essay, your own logic in discussing the writer’s argument will make it clear whether you have found their claims convincing. Your opinion, as framed in your conclusion, may restate your thesis statement in different words, or you may choose to reveal your thesis at this point. The real function of the conclusion is to confirm your evaluation and show that you understand the use of the language and the effectiveness of the argument.

In your analysis, note that objections could be raised because Peterson, for example, speaks only for himself. You may speculate about whether the next edition of the newspaper will feature an opposing opinion piece from someone who disagrees. However, it is not necessary to provide answers to questions you raise here. Your conclusion should summarize briefly how the writer has made, or failed to make, a forceful argument that may require further debate.

For more guidance on writing a rhetorical analysis, visit the Illinois Writers Workshop website or watch this tutorial .

Peer Review: Guidelines toward Revision and the “Golden Rule”

Now that you have a working draft, your next step is to engage in peer review, an important part of the writing process. Often, others can identify things you have missed or can ask you to clarify statements that may be clear to you but not to others. For your peer review, follow these steps and make use of Table 9.4 .

• Quickly skim through your peer’s rhetorical analysis draft once, and then ask yourself, What is the main point or argument of my peer’s work?
• Highlight, underline, or otherwise make note of statements or instances in the paper where you think your peer has made their main point.
• Look at the draft again, this time reading it closely.
• Ask yourself the following questions, and comment on the peer review sheet as shown.

The Golden Rule

An important part of the peer review process is to keep in mind the familiar wisdom of the “Golden Rule”: treat others as you would have them treat you. This foundational approach to human relations extends to commenting on others’ work. Like your peers, you are in the same situation of needing opinion and guidance. Whatever you have written will seem satisfactory or better to you because you have written it and know what you mean to say.

However, your peers have the advantage of distance from the work you have written and can see it through their own eyes. Likewise, if you approach your peer’s work fairly and free of personal bias, you’re likely to be more constructive in finding parts of their writing that need revision. Most important, though, is to make suggestions tactfully and considerately, in the spirit of helping, not degrading someone’s work. You and your peers may be reluctant to share your work, but if everyone approaches the review process with these ideas in mind, everyone will benefit from the opportunity to provide and act on sincerely offered suggestions.

Revising: Staying Open to Feedback and Working with It

Once the peer review process is complete, your next step is to revise the first draft by incorporating suggestions and making changes on your own. Consider some of these potential issues when incorporating peers’ revisions and rethinking your own work.

• Too much summarizing rather than analyzing
• Too much informal language or an unintentional mix of casual and formal language
• Too few, too many, or inappropriate transitions
• Illogical or unclear sequence of information
• Insufficient evidence to support main ideas effectively
• Too many generalities rather than specific facts, maybe from trying to do too much in too little time

In any case, revising a draft is a necessary step to produce a final work. Rarely will even a professional writer arrive at the best point in a single draft. In other words, it’s seldom a problem if your first draft needs refocusing. However, it may become a problem if you don’t address it. The best way to shape a wandering piece of writing is to return to it, reread it, slow it down, take it apart, and build it back up again. Approach first-draft writing for what it is: a warm-up or rehearsal for a final performance.

Suggestions for Revising

When revising, be sure your thesis statement is clear and fulfills your purpose. Verify that you have abundant supporting evidence and that details are consistently on topic and relevant to your position. Just before arriving at the conclusion, be sure you have prepared a logical ending. The concluding statement should be strong and should not present any new points. Rather, it should grow out of what has already been said and return, in some degree, to the thesis statement. In the example of Octavio Peterson, his purpose was to persuade readers that teaching foreign languages in schools in Greendale should continue; therefore, the conclusion can confirm that Peterson achieved, did not achieve, or partially achieved his aim.

When revising, make sure the larger elements of the piece are as you want them to be before you revise individual sentences and make smaller changes. If you make small changes first, they might not fit well with the big picture later on.

One approach to big-picture revising is to check the organization as you move from paragraph to paragraph. You can list each paragraph and check that its content relates to the purpose and thesis statement. Each paragraph should have one main point and be self-contained in showing how the rhetorical devices used in the text strengthen (or fail to strengthen) the argument and the writer’s ability to persuade. Be sure your paragraphs flow logically from one to the other without distracting gaps or inconsistencies.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/9-5-writing-process-thinking-critically-about-rhetoric

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Rhetorical questions or rhetorical uses of questions?

• December 2016
• CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

• Dzemal Bijedic University of Mostar

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Gemma Harvey
• Muhammad Zulhilmi Mohd Nasaruddin

• Tsun Hei Choi

• Hasanuddin Chaer

• Djamil Abdurachman Malik
• Verena Jung

• Tom Stoppard

• John J. Gumperz
• John R. Searle

• J PRAGMATICS

• Jürgen Schmidt-Radefeldt
• Chung-hye Han
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Chapter 6: Thinking and Analyzing Rhetorically

6.4 Rhetorical Appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos Defined

Melanie Gagich & Emilie Zickel

Rhetoric, as the previous chapters have discussed, is the way that authors use and manipulate language in order to persuade an audience. Once we understand the rhetorical situation out of which a text is created (why it was written, for whom it was written, by whom it was written, how the medium in which it was written creates certain constraints, or perhaps freedoms of expression), we can look at how all of those contextual elements shape the author’s creation of the text.

We can look first at the classical rhetorical appeals, which are the three ways to classify authors’ intellectual, moral, and emotional approaches to getting the audience to have the reaction that the author hopes for.

Rhetorical Appeals

Rhetorical appeals refer to ethos, pathos, and logos. These are classical Greek terms, dating back to Aristotle, who is traditionally seen as the father of rhetoric. To be rhetorically effective (and thus persuasive), an author must engage the audience in a variety of compelling ways, which involves carefully choosing how to craft his or her argument so that the outcome, audience agreement with the argument or point, is achieved. Aristotle defined these modes of engagement and gave them the terms that we still use today: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Logos: Appeal to Logic

Logic. Reason. Rationality. Logos is brainy and intellectual, cool, calm, collected, objective.

When an author relies on logos, it means that he or she is using logic, careful structure, and objective evidence to appeal to the audience. An author can appeal to an audience’s intellect by using information that can be fact checked (using multiple sources) and thorough explanations to support key points. Additionally, providing a solid and non-biased explanation of one’s argument is a great way for an author to invoke logos.

For example, if I were trying to convince my students to complete their homework, I might explain that I understand everyone is busy and they have other classes (non-biased), but the homework will help them get a better grade on their test (explanation). I could add to this explanation by providing statistics showing the number of students who failed and didn’t complete their homework versus the number of students who passed and did complete their homework (factual evidence).

Logical appeals rest on rational modes of thinking , such as

• Comparison –  a comparison between one thing (with regard to your topic) and another, similar thing to help support your claim. It is important that the comparison is fair and valid – the things being compared must share significant traits of similarity.
• Cause/effect thinking –  you argue that X has caused Y, or that X is likely to cause Y to help support your claim. Be careful with the latter – it can be difficult to predict that something “will” happen in the future.
• Deductive reasoning –  starting with a broad, general claim/example and using it to support a more specific point or claim
• Inductive reasoning –  using several specific examples or cases to make a broad generalization
• Exemplification –  use of many examples or a variety of evidence to support a single point
• Elaboration – moving beyond just including a fact, but explaining the significance or relevance of that fact
• Coherent thought – maintaining a well organized line of reasoning; not repeating ideas or jumping around

Pathos: Appeal to Emotions

When an author relies on pathos, it means that he or she is trying to tap into the audience’s emotions to get them to agree with the author’s claim. An author using pathetic appeals wants the audience to feel something: anger, pride, joy, rage, or happiness.  For example, many of us have seen the ASPCA commercials that use photographs of injured puppies, or sad-looking kittens, and slow, depressing music to emotionally persuade their audience to donate money.

Pathos-based rhetorical strategies are any strategies that get the audience to “open up” to the topic, the argument, or to the author. Emotions can make us vulnerable, and an author can use this vulnerability to get the audience to believe that his or her argument is a compelling one.

Pathetic appeals might include

• Expressive descriptions of people, places, or events that help the reader to feel or experience those events
• Vivid imagery  of people, places or events that help the reader to feel like he or she is seeing  those events
• Sharing  personal stories that make the reader feel a connection to, or empathy for, the person being described
• Using emotion-laden   vocabulary  as a way to put the reader into that specific emotional mindset (what is the author trying to make the audience feel? and how is he or she doing that?)
• Using any information that will evoke an emotional response from the audience . This could involve making the audience feel empathy or disgust for the person/group/event being discussed, or perhaps connection to or rejection of the person/group/event being discussed.

When reading a text, try to locate when the author is trying to convince the reader using emotions because, if used to excess, pathetic appeals can indicate a lack of substance or emotional manipulation of the audience. See the links below about fallacious pathos for more information.

Ethos: Appeal to Values/Trust

Ethical appeals have two facets: audience values and authorial credibility/character.

On the one hand, when an author makes an ethical appeal, he or she is attempting to  tap into the  values or ideologies that the audience holds , for example, patriotism, tradition, justice, equality, dignity for all humankind, self preservation, or other specific social, religious or philosophical values (Christian values, socialism, capitalism, feminism, etc.). These values can sometimes feel very close to emotions, but they are felt on a social level rather than only on a personal level. When an author evokes the values that the audience cares about as a way to justify or support his or her argument, we classify that as ethos. The audience will feel that the author is making an argument that is “right” (in the sense of moral “right”-ness, i.e., “My argument rests upon that values that matter to you. Therefore, you should accept my argument”). This first part of the definition of ethos, then, is focused on the audience’s values.

On the other hand, this sense of referencing what is “right” in an ethical appeal connects to the other sense of ethos: the  author. Ethos that is centered on the author revolves around two concepts: the credibility of the author and his or her character.

Credibility of the speaker/author is determined by his or her knowledge and expertise in the subject at hand. For example, if you are learning about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, would you rather learn from a professor of physics or a cousin who took two science classes in high school thirty years ago? It is fair to say that, in general, the professor of physics would have more credibility to discuss the topic of physics. To establish his or her credibility, a n author may draw attention to who he or she is or what kinds of experience he or she has with the topic being discussed as an ethical appeal (i.e., “Because I have experience with this topic –  and I know my stuff! – you should trust what I am saying about this topic”). Some authors do not have to establish their credibility because the audience already knows who they are and that they are credible.

Character  is another aspect of ethos, and it   is different from credibility because it involves personal history and even personality traits. A person can be credible but lack character or vice versa. For example, in politics, sometimes the most experienced candidates – those who might be the most credible candidates – fail to win elections because voters do not accept their character. Politicians take pains to shape their character as leaders who have the interests of the voters at heart. The candidate who successfully proves to the voters (the audience) that he or she has the type of character that they can trust is more likely to win.

Thus, ethos comes down to trust. How can the author get the audience to trust him or her so that they will accept his or her argument? How can the the author make him or herself appear as a credible speaker who embodies the character traits that the audience values?

In building ethical appeals, we see authors

• Referring either directly or indirectly to the values that matter to the intended audience (so that the audience will trust the speaker)
• Using language, phrasing, imagery, or other writing styles common to people who hold those values, thereby “talking the talk” of people with those values (again, so that the audience is inclined to trust the speaker)
• Referring to their experience and/or authority with the topic (and therefore demonstrating their credibility)
• Referring to their own character, or making an effort to build their character in the text

When reading, you should always think about the author’s credibility regarding the subject as well as his or her character. Here is an example of a rhetorical move that connects with ethos: when reading an article about abortion, the author mentions that she has had an abortion. That is an example of an ethical move because the author is creating credibility via anecdotal evidence and first person narrative. In a rhetorical analysis project, it would be up to you, the analyzer, to point out this move and associate it with a rhetorical strategy.

 When writers misuse Logos, Pathos, or Ethos, arguments can be weakened

Above, we defined and described what logos, pathos, and ethos are and why authors may use those strategies. Sometimes, using a combination of logical, pathetic, and ethical appeals leads to a sound, balanced, and persuasive argument. It is important to understand, though, that using rhetorical appeals does not always lead to a sound, balanced argument.

In fact, any of the appeals could be misused or overused. When that happens, arguments can be weakened.

To see what a misuse of logical appeals might consist of, see the next chapter,   Logical Fallacies.

To see how authors can overuse emotional appeals and turn-off their target audience, visit the following link from WritingCommons.org :   Fallacious Pathos . 

To see how ethos can be misused or used in a manner that may be misleading, visit the following link to WritingCommons.org :  Fallacious Ethos

1st Edition: A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing (No Longer Updated) by Melanie Gagich & Emilie Zickel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Feedback/Errata

Comments are closed.

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

The 20 Most Useful Rhetorical Devices

General Education

Rhetoric is the art of effective communication; if you communicate with others at all, rhetorical devices are your friends!

Rhetorical devices help you make points more effectively, and help people understand you better. In this article, I'll be covering some important rhetorical devices so you can improve your own writing! 

What Are Rhetorical Devices?

A lot of things that you would think of as just regular everyday modes of communicating are actually rhetorical devices That’s because ‘rhetorical devices’ is more or less a fancy way of saying ‘communication tools.’

Most people don’t plan out their use of rhetorical devices in communication, both because nobody thinks, “now would be a good time to use synecdoche in this conversation with my grocery clerk,” and because we use them so frequently that they don’t really register as “rhetorical devices.”

How often have you said something like, “when pigs fly!” Of those times, how often have you thought, “I’m using a rhetorical device!” That’s how ubiquitous they are!

However, being aware of what they are and how to use them can strengthen your communication , whether you do a lot of big speeches, write persuasive papers, or just argue with your friends about a TV show you all like.

Rhetorical devices can function at all levels: words, sentences, paragraphs, and beyond. Some rhetorical devices are just a single word, such as onomatopoeia. Others are phrases, such as metaphor, while still others can be sentence-length (such as a thesis), paragraph-length (hypophora), or go throughout the entire piece, such as a standard five-paragraph essay.

Many of these (such as the thesis or five-paragraph essay) are so standard and familiar to us that we may not think of them as devices. But because they help us shape and deliver our arguments effectively, they're important to know and understand.

The Most Useful Rhetorical Devices List

It would be impossible to list every single rhetorical device in one blog post. Instead, I've collected a mixture of extremely common devices you may have heard before and some more obscure ones that might be valuable to learn.

Amplification

Amplification is a little similar to parallelism: by using repetition, a writer expands on an original statement and increases its intensity .

Take this example from Roald Dahl’s The Twits :

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it. A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

In theory, we could have gotten the point with the first sentence. We don’t need to know that the more you think ugly thoughts, the uglier you become, nor that if you think good thoughts you won’t be ugly—all that can be contained within the first sentence. But Dahl’s expansion makes the point clearer, driving home the idea that ugly thoughts have consequences.

Amplification takes a single idea and blows it up bigger, giving the reader additional context and information to better understand your point. You don’t just have to restate the point— use amplification to expand and dive deeper into your argument to show readers and listeners how important it is!

Anacoluthon

Anacoluthon is a fancy word for a disruption in the expected grammar or syntax of a sentence. That doesn’t mean that you misspoke—using anacoluthon means that you’ve deliberately subverted your reader’s expectations to make a point.

For example, take this passage from King Lear :

“I will have such revenges on you both, That all the world shall—I will do such things, What they are, yet I know not…”

In this passage, King Lear interrupts himself in his description of his revenge. This has multiple effects on the reader: they wonder what all the world shall do once he has his revenge (cry? scream? fear him?), and they understand that King Lear has interrupted himself to regain his composure. This tells us something about him—that he’s seized by passion in this moment, but also that he regains control. We might have gathered one of those things without anacoluthon, but the use of this rhetorical device shows us both very efficiently.

Anadiplosis

Anadiplosis refers to purposeful repetition at the end of one sentence or clause and at the beginning of the next sentence or clause. In practice, that looks something like a familiar phrase from Yoda:

“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Note the way that the ending word of each sentence is repeated in the following sentence. That’s anadiplosis!

This rhetorical device draws a clear line of thinking for your reader or listener—repetition makes them pay closer attention and follow the way the idea evolves. In this case, we trace the way that fear leads to suffering through Yoda’s purposeful repetition.

Antanagoge is the balancing of a negative with a positive. For example, the common phrase, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” is antanagoge—it suggests a negative (lots of lemons) and follows that up with a positive (make lemonade).

When writing persuasively, this can be a great way to respond to potential detractors of your argument. Suppose you want to convince your neighborhood to add a community garden, but you think that people might focus on the amount of work required. When framing your argument, you could say something like, “Yes, it will be a lot of work to maintain, but working together will encourage us all to get to know one another as well as providing us with fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers.”

This is a little like procatalepsis, in that you anticipate a problem and respond to it. However, antanagoge is specifically balancing a negative with a positive, just as I did in the example of a garden needing a lot of work, but that work is what ultimately makes the project worth it.

Apophasis is a form of irony relating to denying something while still saying it. You’ll often see this paired with phrases like, “I’m not saying…” or “It goes without saying…”, both of which are followed up with saying exactly what the speaker said they weren’t going to say.

Take this speech from Iron Man 2 :

"I'm not saying I'm responsible for this country's longest run of uninterrupted peace in 35 years! I'm not saying that from the ashes of captivity, never has a phoenix metaphor been more personified! I'm not saying Uncle Sam can kick back on a lawn chair, sipping on an iced tea, because I haven't come across anyone man enough to go toe to toe with me on my best day! It's not about me."

Tony Stark isn’t saying that he’s responsible for all those things… except that’s exactly what he is saying in all of his examples. Though he says it’s not about him, it clearly is—all of his examples relate to how great he is, even as he proclaims that they aren’t.

A scene like this can easily be played for humor, but apophasis can also be a useful (albeit deceptive) rhetorical tool. For example, this argument:

Our neighborhood needs a community garden to foster our relationships with one another. Not only is it great for getting to know each other, but a community garden will also provide us with all kinds of fresh fruit and vegetables. It would be wrong to say that people who disagree aren’t invested in others’ health and wellness, but those who have the neighborhood’s best interests in mind will support a community garden.

That last sentence is all apophasis. Not only did I imply that people who don’t support the community garden are anti-social and uncaring (by outright stating that I wouldn’t say that, but I also implied that they’re also not invested in the neighborhood at all. Stating things like this, by pretending you’re not saying them or saying the opposite, can be very effective.

Assonance and Alliteration

Assonance adds an abundance of attractive accents to all your assertions. That’s assonance—the practice repeating the same vowel sound in multiple words in a phrase or sentence, often at the beginning of a word, to add emphasis or musicality to your work. Alliteration is similar, but uses consonant sounds instead of vowel sounds.

Let’s use Romeo and Juliet as an example again:

“From forth the fatal loins of these two foes; A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life.”

Here, we have repetition of the sounds ‘f’ and ‘l’ in ‘from forth...fatal...foes,’ and ‘loins...lovers...life.’

Even if you don’t notice the repetition as you’re reading, you can hear the effects in how musical the language sounds. Shakespeare could easily have just written something like, “Two kids from families who hate one another fell in love and died by suicide,” but that’s hardly as evocative as the phrasing he chose.

Both assonance and alliteration give your writing a lyrical sound, but they can do more than that, too. These tools can mimic associated sounds, like using many ‘p’ sounds to sound like rain or something sizzling, or ‘s’ sounds to mimic the sounds of a snake. When you’re writing, think about what alternative meanings you can add by emphasizing certain sounds.

Listen, asterismos is great. Don’t believe me? How did you feel after I began the first sentence with the word ‘listen?’ Even if you didn’t feel more inspired to actually listen, you probably paid a bit more attention because I broke the expected form. That’s what asterismos is—using a word or phrase to draw attention to the thought that comes afterward.

‘Listen’ isn’t the only example of asterismos, either. You can use words like, ‘hey,’ ‘look,’ ‘behold,’ ‘so,’ and so on. They all have the same effect: they tell the reader or listener, “Hey, pay attention—what I’m about to say is important.”

Dysphemism and Euphemism

Euphemism is the substitution of a more pleasant phrase in place of a familiar phrase, and dysphemism is the opposite —an un pleasant phrase substituted in place of something more familiar. These tools are two sides of the same coin. Euphemism takes an unpleasant thing and makes it sound nicer—such as using 'passed away' instead of 'died'—while dysphemism does the opposite, taking something that isn't necessarily bad and making it sound like it is.

We won’t get into the less savory uses of dysphemism, but there are plenty that can leave an impression without being outright offensive. Take ‘snail mail.’ A lot of us call postal mail that without any real malice behind it, but ‘snail’ implies slowness, drawing a comparison between postal mail and faster email. If you’re making a point about how going electronic is faster, better for the environment, and overall more efficient, comparing email to postal mail with the phrase ‘snail mail’ gets the point across quickly and efficiently.

Likewise, if you're writing an obituary, you probably don't want to isolate the audience by being too stark in your details. Using gentler language, like 'passed away' or 'dearly departed' allows you to talk about things that might be painful without being too direct. People will know what you mean, but you won't have to risk hurting anyone by being too direct and final with your language.

You’ve no doubt run into epilogues before, because they’re a common and particularly useful rhetorical device! Epilogues are a conclusion to a story or work that reveals what happens to the characters in the story. This is different from an afterword, which is more likely to describe the process of a book’s creation than to continue and provide closure to a story.

Many books use epilogues to wrap up loose ends, usually taking place in the future to show how characters have changed as a result of their adventures. Both Harry Potter and The Hunger Games series use their epilogues to show the characters as adults and provide some closure to their stories—in Harry Potter , the main characters have gotten married and had children, and are now sending those children to the school where they all met. This tells the reader that the story of the characters we know is over—they’re adults and are settled into their lives—but also demonstrates that the world goes on existing, though it’s been changed forever by the actions of the familiar characters.

Eutrepismus

Eutrepismus is another rhetorical device you’ve probably used before without realizing it. This device separates speech into numbered parts, giving your reader or listener a clear line of thinking to follow.

Eutrepismus is a great rhetorical device—let me tell you why. First, it’s efficient and clear. Second, it gives your writing a great sense of rhythm. Third, it’s easy to follow and each section can be expanded throughout your work.

See how simple it is? You got all my points in an easy, digestible format. Eutrepismus helps you structure your arguments and make them more effective, just as any good rhetorical device should do.

You’ve probably used hypophora before without ever thinking about it. Hypophora refers to a writer or speaker proposing a question and following it up with a clear answer. This is different from a rhetorical question—another rhetorical device—because there is an expected answer, one that the writer or speaker will immediately give to you.

Hypophora serves to ask a question the audience may have (even if they’re not entirely aware of it yet) and provide them with an answer. This answer can be obvious, but it can also be a means of leading the audience toward a particular point.

Take this sample from John F. Kennedy’s speech on going to the moon:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

In this speech, Kennedy outright states that he’s asking questions others have asked, and then goes on to answer them. This is Kennedy’s speech, so naturally it’s going to reflect his point of view, but he’s answering the questions and concerns others might have about going to the moon. In doing so, he’s reclaiming an ongoing conversation to make his own point. This is how hypophora can be incredibly effective: you control the answer, leaving less room for argument!

Litotes is a deliberate understatement, often using double negatives, that serves to actually draw attention to the thing being remarked upon. For example, saying something like, “It’s not pretty,” is a less harsh way to say “It’s ugly,” or “It’s bad,” that nonetheless draws attention to it being ugly or bad.

In Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave , he writes:

“Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others.”

Notice the use of “not uncommon.” Douglass, by using a double negative to make readers pay closer attention, points out that some slaves still sought superiority over others by speaking out in favor of their owners.

Litotes draws attention to something by understating it. It’s sort of like telling somebody not to think about elephants—soon, elephants becomes all they can think about. The double negative draws our attention and makes us focus on the topic because it’s an unusual method of phrasing.

Onomatopoeia

Onomatopoeia refers to a sound represented within text as a mimicry of what that sound actually sounds like. Think “bang” or “whizz” or “oomph,” all of which can mean that something made that kind of a sound—”the door banged shut”—but also mimic the sound itself—”the door went bang .”

This rhetorical device can add emphasis or a little bit of spice to your writing. Compare, “The gunshot made a loud sound,” to “The gun went bang .” Which is more evocative?

Parallelism

Parallelism is the practice of using similar grammar structure, sounds, meter, and so on to emphasize a point and add rhythm or balance to a sentence or paragraph.

One of the most famous examples of parallelism in literature is the opening of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities :

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way— in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

In the beginning, every phrase begins with “It was,” which is itself a parallelism. But there are also pairs of parallelism within the sentence, too; “It was the ___ of times, it was the ___ of times,” and “it was the age of ___, it was the age of ___.”

Parallelism draws your reader deeper into what you’re saying and provides a nice sense of flow, even if you’re talking about complicated ideas. The ‘epoch of incredulity’ is a pretty meaty phrase, but Dickens’ parallelism sets up a series of dichotomies for us; even if we don’t know quite what it means, we can figure it out by comparing it to ‘belief.’

Personification

Personification is a rhetorical device you probably run into a lot without realizing it. It’s a form of metaphor, which means two things are being compared without the words like or as—in this case, a thing that is not human is given human characteristics.

Personification is common in poetry and literature, as it’s a great way to generate fresh and exciting language, even when talking about familiar subjects. Take this passage from Romeo and Juliet , for example:

“When well-appareled April on the heel Of limping winter treads.”

April can’t wear clothes or step on winter, and winter can’t limp. However, the language Shakespeare uses here is quite evocative. He’s able to quickly state that April is beautiful (“well-appareled”) and that winter is coming to an end (“limping winter”). Through personification, we get a strong image for things that could otherwise be extremely boring, such as if Shakespeare had written, “When beautiful April comes right after winter.”

Procatalepsis

Procatalepsis is a rhetorical device that anticipates and notes a potential objection, heading it off with a follow-up argument to strengthen the point. I know what you’re thinking—that sounds really complicated! But bear with me, because it’s actually quite simple.

See how that works? I imagined that a reader might be confused by the terminology in the first sentence, so I noted that potential confusion, anticipating their argument. Then, I addressed that argument to strengthen my point—procatalepsis is easy, which you can see because I just demonstrated it!

Anticipating a rebuttal is a great way to strengthen your own argument. Not only does it show that you’ve really put thought into what you’re saying, but it also leaves less room for disagreement!

Synecdoche is a rhetorical device that uses a part of something to stand in for the whole. That can mean that we use a small piece of something to represent a whole thing (saying ‘let’s grab a slice’ when we in fact mean getting a whole pizza), or using something large to refer to something small. We often do this with sports teams–for example, saying that New England won the Super Bowl when we in fact mean the New England Patriots, not the entirety of New England.

This style of rhetorical device adds an additional dimension to your language, making it more memorable to your reader. Which sounds more interesting? “Let’s get pizza,” or “let’s grab a slice?”

Likewise, consider this quote from Percy Bysshe Shelly’s “Ozymandias”:

“Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them.”

Here, Shelly uses ‘the hand’ to refer to the sculptor. The hand did not sculpt the lifeless things on its own; it was a tool of the sculptor. But by using just the hand, Shelly avoids repeating ‘the sculptor,’ preserves the poem’s rhythm, and narrows our focus. If he had referred to the sculptor again, he’d still be a big important figure; by narrowing to the hand, Shelly is diminishing the idea of the creator, mirroring the poem’s assertion that the creation will outlast it.

Tautology refers to using words or similar phrases to effectively repeat the same idea with different wording. It’s a form of repetition that can make a point stronger, but it can also be the basis of a flawed argument—be careful that your uses of tautology is the former, not the latter!

For example, take this section of “The Bells” by Edgar Allen Poe:

“Keeping time, time, time, In a sort of Runic rhyme… From the bells, bells, bells, bells.”

Poe’s poetry has a great deal of rhythm already, but the use of ‘time, time, time’ sets us up for the way that ‘bells, bells, bells, bells’ also holds that same rhythm. Keeping time refers to maintaining rhythm, and this poem emphasizes that with repetition, much like the repetitive sound of ringing bells.

An example of an unsuccessful tautology would be something like, “Either we should buy a house, or we shouldn’t.” It’s not a successful argument because it doesn’t say anything at all—there’s no attempt to suggest anything, just an acknowledgment that two things, which cannot both happen, could happen.

If you want to use tautology in your writing, be sure that it’s strengthening your point. Why are you using it? What purpose does it serve? Don’t let a desire for rhythm end up robbing you of your point!

That thing your English teachers are always telling you to have in your essays is an important literary device. A thesis, from the Greek word for ‘a proposition,’ is a clear statement of the theory or argument you’re making in an essay. All your evidence should feed back into your thesis; think of your thesis as a signpost for your reader. With that signpost, they can’t miss your point!

Especially in longer academic writing, there can be so many pieces to an argument that it can be hard for readers to keep track of your overarching point. A thesis hammers the point home so that no matter how long or complicated your argument is, the reader will always know what you’re saying.

Tmesis is a rhetorical device that breaks up a word, phrase, or sentence with a second word, usually for emphasis and rhythm . We often do this with expletives, but tmesis doesn’t have to be vulgar to be effective!

Take this example from Romeo and Juliet :

“This is not Romeo, he’s some other where.”

The normal way we’d hear this phrase is “This is not Romeo, he’s somewhere else.” But by inserting the word ‘other’ between ‘some’ and ‘where,’ it not only forces us to pay attention, but also changes the sentence’s rhythm. It gets the meaning across perfectly, and does so in a way that’s far more memorable than if Shakespeare had just said that Romeo was somewhere else.

For a more common usage, we can turn to George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion , which often has Eliza Doolittle using phrases like “fan-bloody-tastic” and “abso-blooming-lutely.” The expletives—though mild by modern standards—emphasize Eliza’s social standing and make each word stand out more than if she had simply said them normally.

What’s Next?

Rhetorical devices and literary devices can both be used to enhance your writing and communication. Check out this list of literary devices to learn more !

Ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos are all modes of persuasion—types of rhetorical devices— that can help you be a more convincing writer !

No matter what type of writing you're doing, rhetorical devices can enhance it! To learn more about different writing styles, check out this list !

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

There are three types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond to opposing arguments. A good argument will generally use a combination of all three appeals to make its case.

Logos or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use of inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case or facts and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population. Example:

In this example the specific case of fair trade agreements with coffee producers is being used as the starting point for the claim. Because these agreements have worked the author concludes that it could work for other farmers as well.

Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must have been based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence.Example:

In this example the author starts with a large claim, that genetically modified seeds have been problematic everywhere, and from this draws the more localized or specific conclusion that Mexico will be affected in the same way.

Avoid Logical Fallacies

These are some common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Also, watch out for these slips in other people's arguments.

Slippery slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

In this example the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

In this example the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than their opinions or arguments. Example:

In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

In this example the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

In this example the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other, it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Ethos or the ethical appeal is based on the character, credibility, or reliability of the writer. There are many ways to establish good character and credibility as an author:

• Use only credible, reliable sources to build your argument and cite those sources properly.
• Respect the reader by stating the opposing position accurately.
• Establish common ground with your audience. Most of the time, this can be done by acknowledging values and beliefs shared by those on both sides of the argument.
• If appropriate for the assignment, disclose why you are interested in this topic or what personal experiences you have had with the topic.
• Organize your argument in a logical, easy to follow manner. You can use the Toulmin method of logic or a simple pattern such as chronological order, most general to most detailed example, earliest to most recent example, etc.
• Proofread the argument. Too many careless grammar mistakes cast doubt on your character as a writer.

Pathos , or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional sensibilities.  Pathos can also be understood as an appeal to audience's disposition to a topic, evidence, or argument (especially appropriate to academic discourse). 

Argument emphasizes reason, but used properly there is often a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a more legitimate and moving picture of reality or illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a single child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply the number of children abused each year because it would give a human face to the numbers.  Academic arguments in particular ​benefit from understanding pathos as appealing to an audience's academic disposition.

Only use an emotional appeal if it truly supports the claim you are making, not as a way to distract from the real issues of debate. An argument should never use emotion to misrepresent the topic or frighten people.

31 Useful Rhetorical Devices

What is a rhetorical device and why are they used.

As with all fields of serious and complicated human endeavor (that can be considered variously as an art, a science, a profession, or a hobby), there is a technical vocabulary associated with writing. Rhetoric is the name for the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion, and though a writer doesn’t need to know the specific labels for certain writing techniques in order to use them effectively, it is sometimes helpful to have a handy taxonomy for the ways in which words and ideas are arranged. This can help to discuss and isolate ideas that might otherwise become abstract and confusing. As with the word rhetoric itself, many of these rhetorical devices come from Greek.

Ready, set, rhetoric.

The repetition of usually initial consonant sounds in two or more neighboring words or syllables

wild and woolly, threatening throngs

Syntactical inconsistency or incoherence within a sentence especially : a shift in an unfinished sentence from one syntactic construction to another

you really should have—well, what do you expect?

Repetition of a prominent and usually the last word in one phrase or clause at the beginning of the next

rely on his honor—honor such as his?

A literary technique that involves interruption of the chronological sequence of events by interjection of events or scenes of earlier occurrence : flashback

Repetition of a word or expression at the beginning of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses especially for rhetorical or poetic effect

we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground

The repetition of a word within a phrase or sentence in which the second occurrence utilizes a different and sometimes contrary meaning from the first

we must all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately

The usually ironic or humorous use of words in senses opposite to the generally accepted meanings

this giant of 3 feet 4 inches

The use of a proper name to designate a member of a class (such as a Solomon for a wise ruler) OR the use of an epithet or title in place of a proper name (such as the Bard for Shakespeare)

The raising of an issue by claiming not to mention it

we won't discuss his past crimes

An expression of real or pretended doubt or uncertainty especially for rhetorical effect

to be, or not to be: that is the question

Harshness in the sound of words or phrases

An inverted relationship between the syntactic elements of parallel phrases

working hard, or hardly working?

A disjunctive conclusion inferred from a single premise

gravitation may act without contact; therefore, either some force may act without contact or gravitation is not a force

The substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging expression for an agreeable or inoffensive one

greasy spoon is a dysphemism for the word diner

Repetition of a word or expression at the end of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses especially for rhetorical or poetic effect

of the people, by the people, for the people

Emphatic repetition [ this definition is taken from the 1934 edition of Webster's Unabridged dictionary ]

An interchange of two elements in a phrase or sentence from a more logical to a less logical relationship

you are lost to joy for joy is lost to you

A transposition or inversion of idiomatic word order

judge me by my size, do you?

Extravagant exaggeration

mile-high ice-cream cones

The putting or answering of an objection or argument against the speaker's contention [ this definition is taken from the 1934 edition of Webster's Unabridged dictionary ]

Understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary

not a bad singer

The presentation of a thing with underemphasis especially in order to achieve a greater effect : UNDERSTATEMENT

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them ( Metaphor vs. Simile )

drowning in money

A figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated

crown as used in lands belonging to the crown

The naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it

A combination of contradictory or incongruous words

cruel kindness

The use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense : REDUNDANCY

I saw it with my own eyes

A figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by "like" or "as"

cheeks like roses

The use of a word in the same grammatical relation to two adjacent words in the context with one literal and the other metaphorical in sense

she blew my nose and then she blew my mind

A figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (such as fifty sail for fifty ships ), the whole for a part (such as society for high society ), the species for the genus (such as cutthroat for assassin ), the genus for the species (such as a creature for a man ), or the name of the material for the thing made (such as boards for stage )

The use of a word to modify or govern two or more words usually in such a manner that it applies to each in a different sense or makes sense with only one

opened the door and her heart to the homeless boy

MORE TO EXPLORE: Rhetorical Devices Used in Pop Songs

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Usage Notes

Prepositions, ending a sentence with, 33 transition words and phrases, is 'irregardless' a real word, 8 more grammar terms you used to know: special verb edition, fun funner funnest, grammar & usage, point of view: it's personal, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), plural and possessive names: a guide, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', 200 new words and definitions added to merriam-webster.com, the longest long words list, pilfer: how to play and win, weird words for autumn time, 8 words with fascinating histories.